This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
The title "2013 protests in Ukraine" seems to be too broad, doesn't it? I guess the name "Euromaidan" should be fine - it is widely used by Ukrainian media and by protesters themselves. --DixonD (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Executed Move: 25 November 2013
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved rapidly: front page presence, shorter, less ambiguous, alternative and NPOV name preferred.prat (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Ukraine protests → Euromaidan – Since my page move was reverted without any explanation, I'm requesting a page move more formally now. Again, the title of the article is ambiguous since there were other protests in Ukraine in 2013. Euromaidan ("Євромайдан" in Ukrainian) is well-established name across media DixonD (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imminent move
Based on the 'pro-...' portion of the current name and the NPOV guideline combined with its presence on the front page, unless additional arguments are added within the next hour I will go ahead and move the page to Euromaidan. prat (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was reverted with the reason this isn't about membership. I don't have time to spend going in to this but I think other interested parties should follow up to tone down the alleged nature at the introduction of this article and make it more objective. prat (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for now. "Euromaidan" is still not a "well-established name" outside Ukraine. A quick search in Google News reveals that it isn't yet used by media giants such as New York Times, Reuters, BBC, etc. The top results are from Kyiv Post. --Երևանցիtalk15:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's gained enough traction that we could call the article '2013 EuroMaidan protests in Ukraine', nearly 700k google results for it now, other news outlets are using it too.--Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was unfamiliar with the term despite following these events elsewhere, and found my way here from one of the participants' user pages because I was curious what EuroMaidan meant. It does indeed appear to be limited to Kyiv Post results in English media. The current title with EU added is clearer. Sai Weng (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is very clear "2013 Ukraine pro-European Union protests" and also gives description of the events. I, also, had difficulties to associate the title of "EuroMaidan" with the current issues within Ukraine. Olsonspterom (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The notion that everyone at a protest is pro-anything is an attempt to frame the event that is by definition partisan and highly subjective. Titles should be objective. prat (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While the EU talks caused the protests, they are more anti-government than pro-EU. The summit has come and gone, they want new elections more than EU agreements. (example: Me being pro-NAFTA because it reduces duties I would have to pay doesn't make me carte blanche pro-USA) --Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske/Львівське, Do you mean that the current protests are more anti-government than pro-EU? If that's the case than the article title has to reflect that. Then neither "2013 Ukraine pro-European Union protests" nor "Euromaidan" would correctly reflect the anti-government nature of the current Ukrainian protests. Olsonspterom (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to play the balancing game, but it is absolutely a combination of many factors now. Their official demands don't state anything about pro-EU anymore ('forming a committee' is as far as they go); Svoboda demanded today the resignation of the government and prosecution of those who cracked down, no mention of the EU. The protests started as pro-EU and immediate EU treaty signing, but once the summit passed, EuroMaidan turned into EuroRevolution, and now the pro-EU side of things is a long term goal of the opposition, and not an immediate goal of the protests.--Львівське (говорити) 04:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable line of thinking, however it's not the purpose of the title of an article to characterise the various properties of the subject, rather its purpose is to uniquely identify the article. prat (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Lvivske changing from oppose to support -- could you show where it's being used? I still see a wall of Kyiv Post results. I suggest a footnote in the article explaining what exactly EuroMaidan means, which can both serve to educate people like me and allow you to make your case. Sai Weng (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Whoever did the move did it sloppy and messed up the talk page redirects and whatnot. Plus, I don't think we gained consensus on the formatting to do such a move, be it 'Euromaidan' or '2013 Euromaidan protests', and so on. We still need to discuss and fix things! --Львівське (говорити) 05:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the fact that it's on the main page justifies making a POV move in the name of NPOV. My/our concerns were that Wikipedia's influence would cause a non-standard name to become the standard. Anyway, it's just "Euromaidan" from what I can tell. Sai Weng (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, in Ukrainian/Russian news, it's the de facto name on every headline, so it was just a matter of time until it made the leap across the atlantic.--Львівське (говорити) 06:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. But I just looked at the side box on the article and most other languages are still using something similar to our old title. Oh well. What's the usual procedure to get help with something like this? Sai Weng (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the Euromaidan talk page for deletion. Forgot to make a note of that here. Someone who knows what they're doing can figure it out. Sai Weng (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolute bullshit. the consensus was not there at all to do it.
And oppose as opov too. We do not take partisan sides to follow what one twitter account created by godknowswho did. That is the definition of POV. pout that in the reaction section of social media not the lead.
Lihaas, can you please try gaining consensus before moving again? We were seemingly on board with 'Euromaidan', consensus to which was split until it gained traction. Also, there's nothing biased or POV about 'Euromaidan', just as 'Arab Spring, 'Velvet Revolution', and 'Occupy Wall St.' were all movements with their own unique names to define them. If there are pro-Euro protests happening on the Maidan, I don't see what 'point of view' "Euromaidan" is pushing.--Львівське (говорити) 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thej move above does NOT hacve consensus.
And it is POV. The article in the LEAD cited an unnamed non-notable twitter usage. That is not neutral but PARTISAN. partisan is not neutralLihaas (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there seemed to be consensus to move if/when it became common use. It is common use now in all english and ukrainian and russian. How is that "unnamed non-notable"? How is it partisan?--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We are fed up with obeying the elder brother (Russia) for the past 70 years; our culture is closer to Europe"
In thisEuronews piece a pensioner from Kiev is quoted: “Ukraine is Europe and we have to consider ourselves as Europeans, our culture is closer to Europe. We are fed up with obeying the elder brother (Russia) for the past 70 years”. Should this piece of background (I have spoken to other Ukrainians who expressed a similar sentiment) be mentioned in the "Background" section of this article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am asking is since I might not be the most objective when it comes to editing this page since:
I don't think using it as a direct quote works because it's just one person and not a political leader speaking on behalf of others officially. I think, however, that that sentiment could be paraphrased rather than direct quoted to illustrate the sentiment of the crowd.--Львівське (говорити) 04:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the original quote represents the opinion of most people who are protesting. No clue what the you tube video says though, sorry.--Львівське (говорити) 19:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The man I spoke to said it made him angry that Yanukovych did act "like a bad comedian (for example Yakov Smirnoff) does when telling a joke" (when he announced "the temporary hold, but we will integrate in Europe")... and he said it made him feel that Yanukovych was really expressing "Hahahah... We can do anything we like you stupid *#*((*&^&". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!19:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We are fed up with obeying the elder brother (Russia) for the past 70 years; our culture is closer to Europe". Does that comment ring true, or does it sound like yet another sexed-up statement? Really, what (hard) evidence is there that this is from a real person? Given the amount of dis-information on this issue, and the danger that Wikipedia is being used as cheer-leaders for the protesters, then such comments must not be used lightly - but double-checked and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.237 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this ref name is cited 18 times in the article, it goes to the Kyiv Post live updates page. The problem is that they clear out this page every day and archive the updates into new pages, so these 18 refs need to be fixed to go to the appropriate static pages. Just pointing it out now before it snowballs.--Львівське (говорити) 05:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I did this and did not expect that Kyiv Post would clear out this page every day and archive the updates into new pages. But I prefer to fix these links after current rallies and events are over and now concentrate on what is going on now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
infobox help
can someone help put the number of injured berkut troops in the info box? i see how we did the injuries for the protesters but I'm not sure how to get column 2 filled out--Львівське (говорити) 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's looking like 100 troops injured (official source) and 50-to-hundreds of protesters hurt (i guess we can wait for an official estimate for this one)--Львівське (говорити) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll add those number and please add the citations. And is there any information about how many law enforcement agents were in total? --Երևանցիtalk00:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22 reporters injured in Ukraine by Berkut forces
On December 1, around 22 Ukrainian and international reporters have been injured by Berkut forces. Could you please, find names of reporters and their agency from the forthcoming news in each country? It may be a good material for a section in this article.--TenaliBorogovy (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pravda is reporting 305 total injured ("As of December 4 305 people have sought medical attention as a result of collisions that occurred during the mass protests in Kiev."). Should this be the new total on the infobox? My issue is I don't know if this is just protesters, or protesters + police for a combined injury total. Maybe someone who knows Ukrainian can read it better and pick up implied phrasing that google translate doesnt--Львівське (говорити) 19:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1500 Hired Thugs
This in the infobox really needs a citation.
I do not see anything on any news or a google search relating to "government thugs" other than for some accusations of the opposition.
Where did the number come from, too? 1500?
I don't think that it should be split as it currently is, giving the group of 300 its own column. They're part of the protests, just as Svoboda activists are. Radicals don't constitute a separate party altogether.--Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1.6million protesters?
KP gave a range up to 1.6m, if anyone can find any corroborating sources that would be appreciated. Not sure how to handle this info yet since it's only 1 source. link --Львівське (говорити) 02:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found this source which states the 1.6m figure comes from the Interior Ministry. Good enough for the article yet? I wish it was from a major news source, even though they say the source is from officials.--Львівське (говорити) 07:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, you've created an excellent example of article totally lacking neutrality! Seems nothing to do besides waiting until this pro-chaos hongweibing movement gets exhausted.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten to go through the article today, but I noticed things like a section titled "armed thugs" last time. (Since renamed.) It comes with who's most interested in the article I guess. Looking at the history and talk page, Lvivske, you seem willing to work with people if more got involved on the other side. I'll try to take another look later this week. Sai Weng (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how else to word "armed thugs" (assailants? goons? hooligans?). There's some stuff on the page I admittedly let slide since it's borderline and I don't want to get in a habit of reverting/altering every other user's contributions, or overusing the word "allegedly" as a staple in every sentence.--Львівське (говорити) 08:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that the government has used thugs and agent provocateurs but it would be nice if we add something like "(claimed by the media)" or "(disputed)" to make it neutral. There is no way to actually prove their participation in the protests. --Երևանցիtalk15:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except in the instances where they are standing side by side with riot police, in which case it's at least plain clothes police (which is unheard of and brings us full circle). I agree that the language could probably be cleaned up to be more diplomatic, virtually all the news sources reporting speak in a similar tone though.--Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just check the IP here of the IP that started this discussion. It is somebody from Russia... I am afraid that in Russia there is a large group that can not accept that Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia... So no matter what we do... As long if we don't write in this article "all people involved in the 2013 Ukraine pro-European Union protests were wrong and Ukraine is actully a part of Russia" 213.208.170.194 will complain about lacking neutrality!. pro-chaos hongweibing movement is just what right wing Russians named the Orange Revolution (see here). So we are responding to a request of neutrality by someone who is not interested in neutrality... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!16:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just a comment relatively to the pertinency of IP geolocation relatively to neutrality: the IP means nothing or at least isn't conclusive per se in any way. Proof: the site of All-Ukrainian_Union_"Svoboda" which goes as far as forbidding russian language, is itself hosted in ... Russia. See: the IP is [178.248.234.57] and it resolves to a Moscow based web hoster qrator.net: ["Svoboda" site IP] and [QRATOR, hoster of "Svoboda" site, datacenter in Moscow. Also, on Svoboda site, there are two social network boxes, one for the anglospheric Facebook, which counts ~14.000 followers, and one, shown first, for the russospheric and russian based VK (в контакте ...) which counts ~17.000 followers. So, IP obviously isn't a pertinent way to dismiss objectivity or validity of a contribution, or source... User:AntonioB 06:15, 11 December 2013 (CET)
The article is now being slammed by two IP users in sync, possible sock puppets? That they threatened to report any reverts tells they are wiki regulars who don't feel like putting a name in front. Opinions before an edit war breaks out? One IP is from the Dominican Republic, plus the tone of the summaries is telling.--Львівське (говорити) 00:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have semi-protected the article - it is highly visible and edit warrings by IPs do not help. IP, please propose and discuss your changes on the talk page, rather than edit war; you cal also consider getting yourself an account. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a mere coincidence, I’m not in sync with anyone, and also I haven’t threatened anyone, so don’t say it in plural. You should "assume good faith" too, just as Yulia Romero required me.
I restored the infobox from before the trouble. They seem to have a POV to push, and not adressing a real issue of neutrality. Students are a big part of the protest, as are civilians (obviously). Terms need not be inclusive to 100%, obviously not every nationalist or member of any given group is in kiev right now. As far as removing the titushki part, we can discuss that here; it's been reported in the press and politicians, and the groupings of these people have been pro-government and acting with the government in many cases, so it makes sense to me to keep them in that pro-gov column.--Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, infoboxes for controversial subjects are often sources of troubles. While article texts allows for many subtle ways to achieve neutrality, the infoboxes are much more rigid. If an edit war around the infoboxes would emerge I would remove the infobox all together. Said this I do not see any egregious violations of neutrality in the present infobox Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency of Squares
Just looking for a poll of opinion here, but how should we name the squads? In Ukrainian or in English? The 3 at play in the article repeated a lot are St. Michael's Square, Independence Square, and European Square. I'm not going to type the Ukrainian variants of the 'maidans' because I have no clue how to spell them lol. On one hand it's easier for English readers and editors to stick with English, but on the other it's the 'EuroMaidan' movement, so using the word 'maidan' seems logical, at least.--Львівське (говорити) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that virtually all english sources use 'Independence Square', it would obviously be more consistent to use english for this as well as European Square, than mix-n-match. Also, why use Mykhailivska Square for St. Michael's Square? The latter's article is St. Michael's Monastery, not Mykhaylivs’kyi Monastery --Львівське (говорити) 19:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This mix up with street names is due to the government policies. The State agency for standards in Ukraine after 20 years of its existence was unable to come up with the official transliteration of Cyrillic to Latin alphabet. In preparation to the Euro 2012, Kiev streets' names transformed into Ukrainian creole of English language. According to the Ukrainian grammar, names do not get translated. Look at the streets of Paris. Who calls Rue de Richelieu as Richelieu Street or Richelieu Avenue? Nobody. So, why is there a need to translate name of streets in Kiev? However, if those street are being translated, they need to be translated completely rather than coming up with English Surzhyk. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Mykhailivska Ploshcha, it should be translated as Michael Square rather than St.Michael Square. In Ukrainian language it is not called Svyato-Mykhailivska Ploshcha. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox pic
I like the current photo because it's readily identifiable as a protest in Ukraine, with the large Ukrainian flag and masses on the Maidan (also the fact you can see the identifying statue on the Maidan helps, since it's the EuroMaidan protests). Anyone have any suggestions?--Львівське (говорити) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the other image has about 200 Ukrainian flags and instead of a few hundredth people in the night with lots of cars in the background, the new image shows around a hundred ththousand people on Maidan:
there is no reason to use a photo with a few people on Maidan only! if you do not like the one I choose there are other images showing the mass of people on 1 December:
as this are mass protest then we ought to take a photo that reflects that! please choose one, but take the one with lowest number of demonstrators out! noclador (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally really like your first suggestion and that's why I put it in the huge December 1 section. For an infobox, I found the aspect ratio to be very low in height and just hard to make out the details once resized.--Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aspect ratio is a different argument. if you wish to have a better aspect ratio then take the last one in the list above. it has the standard aspect ratio, just take the photo with the few demonstrators out of the infobox. the image there needs to be representative of the demonstrations and as of now it is not! therefore it needs to be replaced. noclador (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found this, but I think those of us following the news have seen groupings of people with rainbow flags, as reported here about the gay community rallying with the euromaidan protesters. Then I found this, which isnt a reliable source, but says it's not the gay community but rather Yuschenko's block....flying rainbow flags? Very confused, not sure how to deal with this info at the moment in regards to the article.--Львівське (говорити) 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
and then there's this --Львівське (говорити) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is not the gay community. Those are some lame attempts by someone, who assumes that the opinion will turn if it looks like the gays are for the EU too. Just ignore it. It will never be known, who is behind this things (it's not the first I hear off) and it is not related to the current demonstrations in Kyiv. (well, unless you're a Kremlin journalist, then it is the only news you bring... and that neo-fascists from Lviv come on order of Sweden to perform a coup... ). One point I think needs to be stressed: there are no reliable sources from Russia as they all toe the line of the Kremlin; therefore we can just ignore them all. noclador (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It all sounded very shady on all fronts, russian source, protesters, and pro-gay blogger alike; so i brought it here first. Glad I did lol. Like you pointed out with the Medvedchuk posters, there's obviously a very anti-gay slant from the anti-EU side of the protests...the comments i inserted from the communist MP from donetsk say enough about that side's priorities --Львівське (говорити) 23:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I believe that the only ones who see a link between "Ukraine not going with Russia" and "Gay" are Medvedchuk & Russian State Duma Oleg Nilov. Or they believe they have such bad arguments they resort to this kind of desperate shenanigans... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Russian news, first video I saw from RT, having pundits dismissing Russia's involvement, saying it's the EU provoking ("violating Ukraine's sovereignty" and UN laws!), even saying that Ukrainians don't want a revolution, it's just western nationalists supported by help who has come from the EU to stage a coup. What? --Львівське (говорити) 00:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this you can read these sort of "stories" have been circulating in Russia for years.... Not sure why: or they believe them themselves or they are are supposed to keep the Russian quite and passive. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR) First of all, they are Internal Troops of Ukraine, rather distinct from militsiya, and with a very quick and reasonable press office. Please use source and don't misuse the name. And yes, ITroops units from most regions of the country are already in Kyiv (freezing their private parts). Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
let's hold on to the source until we can get confirmation. At the moment, it's just an insider rumor, one that the source admits was called off once before. The Interior Ministry already denying today that Interior Troops from Kharkiv never were sent, but 1000 did arrive from somewhere ultimately, so we've seen false reports once before on potential troop movements.--Львівське (говорити) 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many rumors and they are mostly fakes: i.e. rumors of Russian troops landing in Boryspol, fake photos of military tanks in the metro in Kyiv (how would they get out of there? drive up the escalators???), rumors of some secret Milita from Sevastopol... someone is producing a lot of these rumors, but long as we don't see them confirmed on at least a few news sources I would not add any of them to the article. noclador (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KP has a slant (every media does, especially in ukraine where oligarchs are trying to consolidate ownership of all media) but they get their facts straight and do an excellent job rolling out constant reporting. All that matters to me.--Львівське (говорити) 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lutsenko is standing on top of a van with loud speakers, getting the crowd outside the cabinet buildings fired up (ie. playing up to the nationalist element, lots of 'Slava Ukrainyini, Heroyim slava chants to punctuate every statement); unlike yesterday, tons and tons of police (militsia) troops in riot holding flank, about 300 at one end. This might get interesting...--Львівське (говорити) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were tons and tons of police (militsia) troops present (in Arkhitektora Horodets'koho street) during the first day of EuroMaidan on Friday 22 November 2013... And lots more round the Verkhovna Rada building. I saw them myself... (did not take a picture cause I did wanted to loose my innocent tourist look). UNA-UNSO member that day also on the scene. I am afraid you did not describe anything different then what happened on 22 November 2013 above. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to have Klitschko standing on the van giving a speech to thunderous applause, with the column of riot guards 10 feet in front...it was pretty riveting stuff. Reminded me of Yeltsin on the tank vs. the movie 300. I guess clashes did break out afterward?--Львівське (говорити) 16:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently 3 times in this article it is claimed that Viktor Medvedchuk "directed" something... I am sure that there is some place in this article were that should be mentioned... But I am not happy in the current way this is done... (It looks to be WP:SPECULATION). I do not like any conspiracy theory and so far these Viktor Medvedchuk "directed" something info seem not to be backed up with concrete facts but by rumours and He Said, She Said only. I feel we are helping to spread a not based on facts "svengali" image of Viktor Medvedchuk. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!02:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Eurorevolution"
So far, "Eurorevolution" (Єврореволюція) is only used in Ukrainian. I can't find any English language sources that use that term, so it's better to keep it in quotes than bold it. --Երևանցիtalk16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With them proposing an anti-government stance now in parliament, should they be switched to the left side of the infobox? Especially since this would require coalition in parliament with the opposition? Or should they be a third faction?--Львівське (говорити) 19:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
edit: since they didn't agree to the first motion because it had pro-EU stipulations, this would not make them part of the euromaidan movement, but rather a third party who is also anti-regime --Львівське (говорити) 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting the number of EuroMaidan protesters in the infobox; but for NPOV reasons should the number of Anti-EuroMaidans not also be put in the infobox? Including a footnote about their received payment. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!21:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the issue was the few outside of Kiev where numbers werent published, or the ones in Kiev, which are dwarfed by the 10k showing initially. --Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; if we are going to put protests under 1000 in the infobox, we will end up putting all those foreign EuroMaidans also in the infobox... And then we end up with an unreadable infobox..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!22:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
from what we do know, in instances they have been ignored by police / standing with them, they have attacked politicians and protesters alike. Since they are anti-protester, would some better term to describe these formations work? Not necessarily 'government agents' but to illustrate that there are anti-protester thugs who act in groups but not necessarily with a political affiliation.--Львівське (говорити) 01:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move them to the Anti-EU and anti-government-section (were the will be mentioned together with the Commies and Russian Bloc) untill we are 100% sure they are controlled by the Government? I also would prefer to call them Hooligans (titushky). The word Criminal formations suggest that they are the same as drugs dealers/burglars/kidnappers etc. and that they are very well organized. They seem not to be any of that... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!01:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but they are pro-government hooligans, then (even if acting on their own accord, they wouldnt be in the anti-government grouping with the russian bloc / commies). At least that's my reasoning. I agree 'criminal formations' sounds very...google translatey--Львівське (говорити) 01:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense to me (unless they are controlled by the government!). I guess we'll never know, for all we know they're paid for by russia, or another entity, or some acting on their own accord, or are just pissed off ultras who vote PoR.--Львівське (говорити) 01:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"On the margins, suspicious comings and goings seem to take place: on the video below, a man wearing a purple anorak at first appears to attack the anti-riot police. A few minutes later, the same man mingles with the police without attacking them, before casually reemerging from the police ranks to rejoin the protesters, as if nothing had happened."
"On Monday morning, one of our Observers filmed the arrival of masses of young men wearing tracksuits in Marinsky park, next to the Ukrainian parliament. They were joined by the security forces who, at one point, appeared to escort them. When the author of the video asks them what they’re doing, some reply “we’re walking”, whilst others give him the finger."
"we see the same protester interviewed by two different Ukrainian TV channels. In the first sequence, the man explains that people who have nothing to do with the protest movement tried to topple the statue of Lenin, seeming to disapprove of the gesture. Yet in the second [which was chronologically filmed before the first] the same man explains that the protesters must lay into the statue; a symbol in his mind of the current government. This reversal indicates to online users that this protester is in reality a ‘titushki’."
"On November 27th, a protest by homosexual activists in Kiev was filmed by a pro-government Ukrainian TV channel that chose to blur the faces of the activists. It was presented as proof that the opposition was trying to impose gay marriage on Ukraine. "
Why are there nationalists in infobox? Who are they and who aren't they? If Ukrainian nationalists on one side then shouldn't be appropriate to add Russian chauvinists on the other side? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why are you implying that 'nationalist' has negative connotations like 'chauvinist'? (are you?) Personally, on one hand Svoboda/UNA/CUN being demonstrating parties covers part of this, it's not like everyone in the streets is a member of a party. Someone else want to chime in? I put it in there so I may be biased to my own edit/reasoning. --Львівське (говорити) 05:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
side note: Having watched the protests a lot on live streams, it looks like UPA flags are incredibly prominent. Also, the nationalist/upa "glory to heroes" (Слава Героям) chant has been the de-facto chant of the movement, every emcee, DJ, band, etc. who's on stage in the maidan says it too. 'Nationalists' in general IMO are a big part of the movement.--Львівське (говорити) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not implying anything. I just asked. Do not seek a black cat in a dark room, especially when it's not there. It was a simple question. Who are non-nationalists? How do identify those nationalists? By the black-red flags? Those flags are revolutionary colours of Ukraine and do not necessary represent nationalists. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but I guess you could say how do you identify students, or europhiles, or any other group that is pro-EU. There's a lot of moderate nationalists who are for being a nation state with greater autonomy within Europe, like you said not just everyone with a revolutionary flag.--Львівське (говорити) 17:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You are reading me wrong, brother. I am talking about disambiguate and clear information. No one calls for a nationalistic revolution (at least explicitly), yet the fact that protesters are europhiles is not identified. I am only for consistency. That is all. I have nothing against nationalists, however there are people who see the term in different perspective, believe it or not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Economit is reporting breaking news that Yanu signed with the Custom Union during his secret visit to Sochi. Added it to the article already (KP and UNION reporting on it so far) --Львівське (говорити) 01:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really like how you formulated it in the article (According to Edward Lucas, senior editor at The Economist, citing his own sources, Yanukovych allegedly signed a pact with Russia that included an agreement to join their Customs Union)... because it does sound a bit unlikely... taking into account the trouble he went to in recent days to restart relations with the EU... (On the other hand the decree to suspend preparations for the EU-Ukraine AA-agreement was also a sudden change of course). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!01:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to be careful. Lots of news agencies are picking up on the tweets now, and Lutsenko is declaring 'war'; so since the opposition is talking about it I think it's for sure worth keeping (unless it's proven to be false). Now, personally do I think it's possible? Given all the Azarov quotes, it all lines up. Right now Yanu & co have the choice between the EU (reforms would kill them), Russia (integration would greatly weaken them), or isolation (economic collapse, possible coup). Now given the 3 scenarios going with Russia would still allow his Family to stay in control of his principality like a Luschenko, Kadyrov, or a Nazarbayev. This all goes against oligarch interest though, so it's confusing...has he gone rouge? Going with Russia would allow him to call in Russian troops for 'security reasons', a coup without Russia would see him ousted. This is all looking very messy,
The other thing to consider is that the Communists have turned on them. If they stay course, then the opposition + communists will dissolve parliament. After that momenum has taken place and yanukovych will be impeached. The only way to head this off is to give the Communists something to keep the Regionaires in power: going with Russia.
It's officially denounced now, I'll fix the section soon...Edward Lucas is standing by his word that it was a letter of intent. IMO this makes sense, he gets the deal done now and would have a year to crack down on opposition, so that in 2015 when it goes through (like Armenia) he wouldn't have to face the thunder of doing it now. As Timothy Snyder said in his recent article, "Nor is it really very likely that Putin will come through with large sums unless Yanukovych agrees to join Russia’s Eurasian Union, which would amount to the end of Yanukovych’s power since it would amount to the end of Ukrainian sovereignty." It would seem to be a last ditch cash grab for Yanu and Firtash. The EU's conditions for a cash injection require reform, Russia doesn't. This is all so greasy now...--Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hayden, in Ukraine is a dark horse. Most people in Ukraine have no clue who that is. Most people in the world do not know her either. There is no need to extend extra exposure for celebrities in politics as well, my opinion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me second. It's a HYPERimportant potentially MEGAlong article: no place for celebrity litter whatsoever. IMHO, The only celebrity relevant is Ruslana who is really active activist beaten by police, possibly also Kasha Saltsova who is relentlessly tweeting genuine political statements and calls for action. Ukrained2012 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More people in the world know who Hayden Panettiere is then who Kasha Saltsova is... (the fact that she has not even her own English Wikipedia article proofs that). This is English Wikipedia so it is of no value whatsoever that "Most people in Ukraine have no clue who that is". It is of value that "Most people in the English speaking world have a clue who that is". Panettiere seems to me to be famous in the USA and the UK. Most readers of English Wikipedia are from the USA and the UK. I got the feeling that blokes from Bristol will find it interesting that people like Panettiere got involved in Euromaidan. You might find that "celebrity litter", but you are not a bloke from Bristol who had never heard of Ukraine before today... (I.o.w. Please keep the reader in mind when editing Wikipedia, not your own personal "feeling what/who matters most"). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict yourself, first you put "I got the feeling that blokes from Bristol will find it interesting that people like Panettiere etc" and just after "Please keep in mind the reader when editing Wikipedia, not your personal "feeling/who matters most". Damn... so your feeling is right but others isn't? Now, if one is to apply your rule, Wikipedia in russian should have in mind first the russian reader. Ha!. Objectivy, at least in science, isn't a factor of reader's idiosyncrasies. Klitschko doing a PR stunt by showing his pretty american girlfriend around doesn't add anything to the issues at stake. And one can hardly believe that Panettiere has any clues of the complexity of Ukraine, and even less any knowledge of ukrainian nor russian. So she said few words of support, translated on the fly by Klitschko and that's it. What value there??? AntonioB, 12:05, 11 december 2013 (CET).
My feeling was "I got the feeling that blokes from Bristol will find it interesting that people like Panettiere etc"; that does not contradict with "keeping in mind the reader when editing Wikipedia". I believe that "keeping in mind the reader when editing Wikipedia" helps to edit in a way described in Wikipedia:Five pillars.
Some parts of your above message is not based on facts but on guesswork... You don't know Mr. Klitschko intentions and his reasons and you don't know what Ms. Panettiere knows. I know my attempts at understanding what people feel/know can be wrong... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!21:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MVD censoring journalist beatings
Scary stuff, but the MVD is now censoring videos on youtube of the beatings from last week under 'copyright claims'. (apparently they still list themselves as the MVD instead of MVS? yandex) Anyway, though we have a pretty comprehensive overview of what happened last week according to the press, it's always good to edit reliable stuff into the article before it disappears in the coming weeks. (though I guess major news sources will be safe, so this is all probably a false alarm)--Львівське (говорити) 03:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, though I don't get your point about that particular YT video. It's not closed or deleted yet. Extra precaution is always helpful, but the Ukraine situation came too far: either Google ignores any claims by police, or Google is made abolish its copyright rules altogether. Euromaidan is like Arctic30 multiplied by 30). Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they fought the claim, last night I couldn't access it at all (now I can), just got the "sorry, video has been taken down due to a copyright claim by MVD Ukraine, etc" --Львівське (говорити) 23:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
attacks on Svoboda site are not new, and are expected, given its far-right positions, its ban of russian language, incitation to anti-russian hatred, its nazi reburial ceremony, etc. So no surprise. Pressure on Svoboda is no more a sign of anti-democratic repression, than ban of neo-nazi parties in Germany or NazBols in Russia. By the way, paradoxically, Svoboda does host its site on at russian provider specialized in DDoS protection. Quite silly for a party wanting a ban of russian language. I don't provide refs. in this comment because it should all be trivial, but a whole page could be filled with rocksolid references, and for instance, about Svoboda's antisemitism, data from the World Jewish Congress itself and AntonioB 10:49, 11 December 2013 (CET).
Ladies and gentlemen, ALL claims about "divided Ukraine" and "pro-Yanukovych half of the country" are nothing more that stupid propaganda, hilariously disproved by media (including pics and videos). This doesn't belong here at all.
For instance, I deleted claim about "70.000" pro-authorities rally in Ukraine, citing source. The source actually says that many participants were bussed in against their will, and that the "70000" figure are solely the words of Yanukovych's governor Mikhail Dobkin, a disgraced liar and staunch opponent of everything related to Western and Central Ukraine (see his bioarticle). Please remember that Ukraine is one of world's leading Internet countries, so everything everywhere is being filmed, photographed and uploaded by literally millions.
There's plenty of evidence that anti-revolution Web-propaganda is being served by organized professionals (particularly those hired by the ONLY open opponent of Ukraine-EU ties). Our objective is to purge such fecal matter from Wikipedia and secure neutral source-based coverage. Another type of feces, though much less immoral, is the unrealistic, unverified and emotional claims sometimes coming from the activists themselves. There were already dozens of Euromaidan-related media scares and panic news here. Some suspect this is coming from the same sewage source. Please be careful and thorough here. Thank you, Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the 70,000 figure should be removed, just because they were bussed in. The dubious methods are covered in the article, and they aren't listed as anti-EU, just "pro-government", which they were. I guess the issue could be the figure, maybe we can see if there are reports in the press about the actual turnout? I'm the last person who would ever push a POV about a pro-yanukovych half of the country, by all accounts the east doesn't care about anything, they're lethargic. --Львівське (говорити) 23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the east/west divide, today saw record highs in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaparizhia, Luhansk, Simferopol, and Odessa. Small comparative to Kiev/Lviv, but still surprising. Especially the 7 thousand in Dnipropetrovsk and 5,000 in Zapo. Also, 3,000 organically came out in Kharkiv, versus the tens of thousands of phoneys in opposition.--Львівське (говорити) 00:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this source is worth inclusion to the article. It shows that a solid majority of Ukrainians support euro-integration. The most solid support is in the West while East has less people supporting the unification than opposing it, still the percentage of supporters is quite high even here. The source is from Donetsk, so I guess if it is biased it is biased towards Pro-Yanukovich side. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think all RS polls are worth inclusion, those numbers seem in line with the ones already in the article. Maybe discussing in the article the regional breakdown makes sense, but I don't know if it gets to the point where the content should be split into the Ukraine-Euro relations article.--Львівське (говорити) 01:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to clarify my position, and evade a SYSTEMIC bias in the article: since 04:00 Nov 30, the Euromaidan is not about EU Agreement ANYMORE. This is articulated by everybody here: bloggers, politicians, experts (feel free to add refs). It's NOW about toppling Yanuk and changing system. For this WIDER new goal, THERE IS NO DIVIDE IN UKRAINE (for EU or Russia integration - there still is one, very uneven, rather a splinting). Ukrained2012 (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's about both. Before the Summit it was about sending a message to sign, after the summit in Lithuania passed, it became about toppling the government so Ukraine can sign. You can't say it's not about the EU agreement anymore when it's called Euromaidan and everyone from Lviv to Donetsk is flying EU flags.--Львівське (говорити) 02:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speaking of propaganda, apprrently the pro-Russian contingent in Crimea thinks Euromaidan is over and the government has restored order. All hail glorious leader, and whatnot. link --Львівське (говорити) 01:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Max # of protesters calculation
Officials have posted a calculation saying that its impossible to fit more than 100,000 on the Maidan and surrounding protest areas. Not sure if they're a reliable source (bias) or if my translation of the page is even 100%. Should this be included?--Львівське (говорити) 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty solid calculation, in my opinion. But look at the picture of the square when it is filled to its max. The picture certainly does not correspond to zones identified by the MVS. If you look at pictures, the square is filled completely not only along Khreshchatyk and people were located not only on Khreshchatyk, but also along the Institute Street towards the Bank Street (Bankova Street). There also over the Institute Street at Independence Square is a bridge that was filled to its max as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-maidans section (wrong date)
This needs to be edited, I am guessing that the events actually happened on the 2nd of December? (Doesn't look like it's making references to a future demonstration).
I thought it was confirmed now that the site is down due to the raid on their servers, not a hacking DDoS attack. The sites of 2 newspapers which were also in the building are also down. (the paragraph i've been working on deals with this). If you want to know why the site's down, check this pic out :-o--Львівське (говорити) 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. We had a small communication problem here. I had forgotten that the chapter was about hacking and not about websites that are not accessible. I apologise and thanks for the picture. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!20:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose by now - firstly the Euromaidan article is already long and would certainly grow longer as the events unwind, so splitting side topics is a good thing. Secondly, at the moment we do not know whether the greeting would be only a Euromaidan thing or it would be used many years after. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Moreover, that article serves no importance and should be eliminated. It is a simple slogan in support of the protest by some Ukrainian celebrities that does not require a specific article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support/delete the other tgere is n osource other than a youtube link. That is not notable or RS.
Well, Alex Bakharev, if we dont know what it will be then clearly it is not notable yet. If and when it is then it can be expanded in scope. Right now it probabl y doesnt even warrant mention here.Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Length
I understand that there is a lot of important stuff that should be included in this article, but its length is getting ridiculous day by day. I suggest we find ways of shortening it a little and keep it as brief as possible. --Երևանցիtalk03:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The protests section or the other parts? Do you think some parts should be split off? I think for the protests stuff, we'll keep bloating it up and then once the dust has settled start trimming and paraphrasing it down once we can see what was important and what was filler. The current street by street stuff with the berkut is filler - unless they start cracking down tonight, then the lead up might be important. I fully support ya though.--Львівське (говорити) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, there's an information overload on every major event nowadays and it's not easy to filter it as it comes in. What you're saying is the best possible solution. I'll try to take a closer look at the background and the first few sections of the protests since there is a more or less clear picture about them. --Երևանցիtalk04:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying off tonight, bookmarking links I find and just following twitter of journalists / live video. Like you said, this is too crazy at the moment to try to 'Live Wiki' as things unfold.--Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that this is playing out like Wikipedia. Protesters put their POV all over the article (square), WP:OWN it, and then the authorities tries to come in section blank things while trying to be WP:CIVIL. Protesters start reinserting their material (literally, barricades); authorities go back to clear it out. Full out edit war in the streets of Kiev.--Львівське (говорити) 20:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
The background section is good but seems to omit pressure from Russia not to sign the agreement. From my understanding that also contributed to the popular protests. Jmj713 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russia acted as the catalyst that allegedly caused the government to cancel the agreement. Background on this should include trade sanctions in the run up to Lithuania, and the meeting which occurred just prior.--Львівське (говорити) 06:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biased removal of encyclopedic content.
I have been following closely the treatment of these protests by different press agencies, newpapers and analysts, across different languages.
While the article provided a lot of links to press articles, for some reason, a small paragraph that I added in the "Protests" section, with links about the role of Svoboda, mainly in the occupation of the Kiev City Hall, has been simply suppressed by User:Lvivske as (in the edit history): "(removing unencyclopedic, unobjective, POV slam piece (also entirely original research))"
Here is my diff:
[[2]]
So far, I only link with the bare minimum contextual presentation to articles in BCC, LeMonde/AFP, OpenDemocracy.net and a couple blogs. As for the blogs they are relevant as they are showing themselves AFP and Reuters pictures and further links which are not exhibited by the pro-EU protesters.
So there's no original research from me, simply some references/sources, among others. They are completely referenced and are not even coming from moscovite remote-controlled organs (which anyway have also they right to a point of view...) but from observers and reporters having absolutely no local involvment. They put in light the role of Svoboda and its occupation of the Kiev City Hall. These articles contains very little elaboration upon the bare facts and are certainly much less biaised than many partisan comments from political figures that the articles quotes abundantly.
Your source says "Members of the nationalist Svoboda party occupied the building and held meetings, Reuters news agency reported.", it seems you added "broke violently into" on your own whim. Further, they were not the only ones occupying the building, so the presentation is disingenuous at best.
Svoboda activists at the Kiev City Council Hall have been spotted wearing the former party runic logo on helmet, for instance ,via AFP,in this article [3]
Your source says nothing of the sort, you saw a person with an runic symbol on his helmet and engaged in original research. Even if it was reported in the press, why is this relevant? How does this pertain to the role of Svoboda in protests? Did they summon Thor from Asgard?
Marples says Svoboda "adds another element of unpredictability to the equation." Full stop. Nothing more. Your assertion that they, a major opposition party and member of the parliamentary coalition has "hijacked" the protests is your own invention here. Your other source is a far-left blog, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Also, there is a weight issue here; the media or analysts simply haven't talked about this alleged "svoboda factor" here.
Marples in the opendemocracy.net provided link ([4]):
"Two consequences have been notable. One is the peripheral influence of opposition leaders in the protests. The other is the occasional hijacking of the protests by more extremist elements that would be only too happy to see violence ensue. The presence of Svoboda [Freedom] leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, who was expelled from former president Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party in 2004 for his extreme right views, adds another element of unpredictability to the equation. "
The "occasional hijacking" mentionned by the article links to another article [Provoking Euromaidan about titushki, SNA and it explains:
"There is no hard evidence to show that the Svoboda parliamentary party was involved in the attacks – Oleh Tyahnybok was one of the leaders of the opposition urging the violent crowd to stop – but the possibility cannot be ruled out that some individual members of Svoboda, especially from its neo-Nazi wing C14, took part in the confrontation with the police."
"For Mr. Tyagnibok, a urological surgeon by training who joined the party at its inception in the early 1990s, the aim is to translate that higher profile into an even larger role in the country’s future politics, based on an unyielding nationalism.
“Our understanding of nationalism is love,” he said in a recent interview in one of the buildings in downtown Kiev that are occupied by protesters, a site known as the Headquarters of the Resistance. “Nationalism is love of the land, love of the people who live on the land, and it is love of a mother. Love of a mother cannot be bad.”
Members of Ukraine’s Parliament saw things differently a decade ago. In 2004, they voted to expel Mr. Tyagnibok over a speech in which he described World War II-era partisans bravely fighting Germans, Russians, Jews and “other scum.” He went on to slur what he called the “Jewish-Russian mafia” running Ukraine.
Until 2004, Svoboda had been called the Social-Nationalist Party, which critics said was just a word flip away from its true ambitions and a deliberate reference to the National Socialism of the Nazis. Unabashed neo-Nazis still populate its ranks, organizations that study hate groups in Europe say."
More about Svoboda extreme right-wing/neo-facism and their occupation of City Hall:
instance of a Jerusalem Post article with Reuters Ukrainian Jews split on dangers of protest movement :
"In a sign of the party’s expanding influence in street politics, earlier this week it took full control of City Hall, one of the symbolic prizes of the protest, by expelling another opposition group, the nongovernmental organization Spilna Sprava. Like so much else about Svoboda, this event created ripples of controversy but ended as a victory for the party.
During a police raid early Wednesday, Spilna Sprava activists, who had controlled part of the foyer, left the building, saying they would confront the police in the street. As shoving matches with the police began outside, Svoboda men stuck a fire hose out an upper window and proceeded to spray everyone below, the police and the young men of Spilna Sprava. Svoboda refused to let the activists back in, saying they had run away during the fight."
or in Bloomberg last year Don’t Isolate Ukraine, and Watch Those Neo-Fascists:
"Svoboda has cleaned up its act. In 2004 it changed its name from the Social-Nationalist Party and dropped a Swastika-like emblem. Still, much of its appeal lies in hardcore ethnic- Ukrainian nationalism and a hatred of Poles, Russians, Jews and gays. These have deep roots in Ukraine’s history and should give pause.
Svoboda’s leaders glorify those Western Ukrainians who welcomed the Nazis in 1941, seeing the Germans as potential liberators from Soviet rule. Those same Ukrainians also collaborated in the widespread murder of Jews and Poles. As in the Baltic states, there is a sharp division here over how to interpret the motives of those who worked with the Nazis and how they should be remembered today.
What the election result shows is a growing risk that disenchanted voters will again mix up Ukrainian nationalism with xenophobia. Svoboda, led by Oleh Tiahnybok, supported the 2004 Orange Revolution. It was later expelled from the group surrounding former president Viktor Yushchenko, when Tiahnybok made a speech saying that Ukraine was ruled by a “Moscow-Jewish mafia.” It was not the only speech he made that was loaded with this sort of language.
Tiahnybok has said that while he does not regret using those words, he was misinterpreted. He also says his party is neither xenophobic nor anti-Semitic. In any case, for Svoboda’s supporters, Russophobia remains the party’s main attraction. All votes have not yet been counted, but the party looks set to win about 33 of the Rada’s 450 seats. "
In the geopolitical context, the use of double standards and lack of objectivity in the analyses and reports of the protests is itself an issue. How democratic and pacific is the illegal control of the Kiev City Council, relatively to the obvious countering and law enforcement role of the police has been discussed. For instance: A Tale of Two Protests: Ukraine vs. Thailand orA Tale of Two Protests: Ukraine and Thailand
This sentence is more original research and synthesis. To call the media out for "double standards" and a "lack of objectivity" in regards to a topic you invented is text book POV pushing. The sources attached are completely off topic and appear to have been used in bad faith, too (the second is a conspiracy blog, come on!). I hope these comments explain my objection to this and why it was removed.--Львівське (говорити) 06:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
btw as far as I know, the mentioned "runic symbol" is used by organizations that are members of so called Social-National Assembly as it mentioned here. Svoboda is not a member of SNA. Anyway it has no relation to this article, it is just to show how dangerous is to use original research unless you want to produce fake facts. --DixonD (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background on the party's in relation to the movement is great, background as a platform to lump as much negative press into one paragraph as possible isn't (could be done to any party). Context is important. Also, I don't think we can establish the effects of party involvement on Euromaidan until the protests are over and we can figure out appropriate weight. The role and impact of a party can change at any given moment at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split the main article
Due to WP:SIZE issues (>200 kB now) I propose to divide the main aricle into some subarticles:
Geography means in English the branch of knowledge that studies the lands, the features, the inhabitants, and the phenomena of the Earth; so that tittle makes no sense... + proposed tittles 3 and 5 look POV-pushy (today Vitaliy Zakharchenko stated "I want to calm everyone down: there will be no dispersal of Maidan").
I would prefer if we start using the same names as the Occupy movement articles
Yes, I totally agree with Lvivske, the reaction section can easily be separated. It is an accepted tradition to have articles about reactions on major events. --Երևանցիtalk04:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we hold off on splitting the protests section into some chronology until we've better developed the article, and can better summarize in hindsight of events.--Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you guys for the work you've put into the article and note that it's still very unwieldy on mobiles and tablets at the moment. By the way, if any Ukrainian-speakers are watching this and interested in a project next year, see the last section of Talk:Viktor Medvedchuk. There's a lot of potential in this underserved part of the wiki. Sai Weng (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign correspondent at 5 Channel saying 200k are being paid to come out, guess it's breaking but if someone finds a good RS on this that'd be helpful. link This weekend's sub-section may be a doozy...--Львівське (говорити) 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
well that was fast:[reply]
watching spilno.tv stream, trying to interview attendees, most are covering their faces / "no comment". Seems everyone was issued 'Party of Regions 2012' surplus campaign ponchos, this is sad...--Львівське (гово��ити) 09:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Viktor Pinchuk said about Euromaidan today: "It gives me huge optimism for the future of our country”
Nothing groundbreaking in the article. It's mostly a rehash combined with some anecdotal stuff. The basis points reflect uncertainty about Ukraine's massive debt. Basically, the true impact is a big question mark, which is why rates spiked. Sai Weng (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More info about Civic organizations involved in Euromaidan is more then welcome in this Wiki-article
This edit made me realise that the Civic organizations involved in Euromaidan do not get enough attention in this article. I now that a lot of you (and me) have already invested a lot of time in this article; and I thank you (and me) for that. But more info about Civic organizations involved in Euromaidan is more then welcome in this Wiki-article. Because untill 24 November no political party was involved in the protests (I was in Kyiv on 22-11-2013 and at the time the people at the Yulia Tymoshenko Permanent tent protest on Khreshchatyk seem to ignore what was going on already at Maidan Nezalezhnosti...) It seems that before 24-11-2013 politicians had nothing to do with Euromaidan... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help Translating needed: Gov' planning attacks on protesters
Pretty damning stuff but since I can't read the Ukrainian scans, I'm hoping someone else here can better ensure proper translation before it goes into the article.
Former head of presidential secretariat Viktor Baloga released a number of documents that show that the attacks on peaceful demonstrators, including the original one on Nov. 30 against hundreds of students, was well-planned by the security services. Several documents, with date ranges between Nov. 24 and Dec. 10, show that the security services started preparing to attack just three after the protests kicked off, and were low in numbers. The State Security Service (SBU) said the demonstrations presented a potential terrorist threat.
Later documents show lists of Defense Ministry vehicles and equipment that were dispatched to the streets, as well as their location. The last document concerning the terrorist threat was issued on Dec. 10, the day when President Viktor Yanukovych promised western envoys Catherine Ashton and Victoria Nuland that no force will be used.
"In that letter, the level of terrorist threat is characterized as "potential" and is extended till Dec. 31, 2013. This means that in the coming weekend provocations with use of weapons, explosives, and so on, can become a reality," Baloga told Ukrainska Pravda website.
"This gives us basis to say that from the very first days the government has been actively preparing a terrorist act that will untie their hands to use greater force."
“The answer is simple: Get some tanks and drive them off the square,” said Viktor Ruzyenko, a 30-year veteran of the factory who was coming off the night shift into the early morning frost. “Even under the Communists I never saw anything so disgraceful.”
Classic debate trick: "You don't know what you talk about". The beauty of Wikipedia is that even if that would be true, eventually your mistakes will be corrected. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!22:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14–15 December pro-government rally in European Square
Just been (22.30, 14.12.2013) to Evropeiska Square where I photographed mlitia and barricades this morning, and it's absolutely empty now, traffic flowing round it as normal. No police presence apart from a few traffic cops. So presumably all the planned counter-demonstrations have just evaporated?--Smerus (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the pics! yeah, they called it a day already, i guess they cancelled the one for tomorrow because they said go home for work on monday. What a flop. 25% the turnout of what they wanted and it didnt even last a full day.--Львівське (говорити) 21:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reflist
What's going on with the reflist? My computer displays references 134, 135, and 262-419 — all in their rightful places, so there are massive white spaces. I'm running IE10 in Windows 8; both are new for me, so there's a chance I've misconfigured something without realising it. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"Russian trade sanctions" as cause of Euromaidan?
The text makes a claim that "Russian trade sanctions" are the cause of Euromaidan, i.e. one of the reasons why people went out on the streets was because Russia had earlier barred certain Ukrainian goods, including chocolate, from entering the Russian market. I question the verifyability of this claim.
The contributor refers to the BBC article entitled "Ukraine protest: EU deplores 'Russian pressure". The article does not support the above mentioned claim. It only cites the opnion of certain EU leaders that Russia had put pressure on Ukraine.
I hear what you're saying. Personally, it's verifiable that a protest demand is rejection of the Customs Union. Also, Russian trade sanctions and pressure to join the Customs Union is what caused the government to back away from the Association Agreement with the EU (which we can also cite), so ipso facto Russian pressure was one of the causes of the protests. This is just my initial look at the point, I'll wait on some other opinions to fall in here.--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lvivske. Indeed, people may be against the Customs Union. They may want Timoschenko to be freed. They may want to freely travel to Europe. They may be angry at Russia for the chocolate. However, neither reliable source says that any of these issues were the direct cause of Euromaidan. We may have our personal opinions and assumptions but Wikipedia is not about original research but about reliability and verifiability of sources. If a text cannot be substantiated by robust citations, it must be deleted. Indeed, let's see what other say. Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to be reading RT and saw this, "Russia, which was blamed by both the Ukrainian opposition and western statesmen for twisting Ukraine’s arms to stop its EU integration, [...] Moscow warned Ukraine against signing the trade agreement, saying that it would be forced to revoke its own free trade arrangement with the country to protect Russian markets from the inflow of European goods. This was branded as economic blackmail by some in the pro-EU integration ranks."1 Now, it's not a cause of the protests, but the EU agreement is, and the opposition blames Russian policy for it not happening. Today Euromaidan passed a resolution saying in part "Ukraine will no longer be a province of the Russian Empire, it will become an EU member," 2--Львівське (говорити) 22:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. But what you mention is a quote of an opinion by opposition leaders and a declaration, not the actual cause of why people are on the streets.
If the demonstrators adopt a declaration blaming Europe for not putting political leverage on Yanukovich or that Yanukovich is a crook, you will not write that the cause of Euromaidan was "EU failure to push Yanukovich hard enough to sign the Agreement" or "Because Yanukovich is a crook", right?
If Russian trade measures against e.g. Ukrainian chocolate imposed during the summer were the direct cause of the demonstrations, people would have been on the streets already in the summer, not five months later!
Again, as already mentioned, Wikipedia rules say that inline citation should directly support the material. What I see here is a loose interpretation of a reliable source. Plutonius1965 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution against the CU/RF was made my a vote of protesters in the streets, not just a declaration of the opposition in isolation. While the trade sanctions in of themselves didnt cause protests, sanctions/pressure that stopped the EU deal from going through did cause protests. This is just my take on the matter (IMO, blah blah). --Львівське (говорити) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing as one who is presently in Kiev. The things is that the events move very quickly and sourcing can be difficult in such circumstances. There are many problems with the article, consequently - for example the article retains traces of what people 'thought' was going to happen - e.g. it seemed that there would be big pro government 'demos' on 14/15 December in Kiev, but they melted away within hours of starting - hence the section on that is perhaps disporportionately large, which is also in effect an 'unsourced' distortion. My very clear impression from conversations is that the galvanization to its present size, stability and impetus of the Euromaidan demonstration is not to do either with the EU or Russian trade sanctions, although both of these have been useful hooks, but revulsion at the authorities' attacks on participants in the early stages. ('We went to sleep in Ukraine but woke up in Belarus' as someone said). It started as one thing and has moved on to become something else. But this is all just WP:OR, of course :-) --Smerus (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE: the pro-gov rally, sorry but that was my bad. It was covered A LOT in the Ukrainian press in the run up to it, both with POR comments and the opposition freaking out, and as a result I wrote the paragraphs in my sandbox in the days leading up to make sure the sourcing was correct, and now they appear bloated. We'll trim things down over time, hindsight is the only way to deal with undue weight in these cases.--Львівське (говорити) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, Lvivske, thank you for your constructive contributions. Ok we all agree we have no reliable third-party source that could confirm the bullet point. Russian trade measures indeed may annoy people but any claim stronger than that is just an assumption and a WP:OR indeed. I therefore suggest to keep it for 24 hours. If we get no sourcing by then, I suggest deleting the point, closing the thread and continue our work to improve the article. I hope you all agree. Plutonius1965 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too - So far we are only sure that on 21 November 2013 a Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing of the association agreement with the EU and the reason given for this was that the previous months Ukraine had experienced "a drop in industrial production and our relations with CIS countries" (Russia is a CIS country). I have seen no news report myself that there even was "a drop in industrial production and our relations with CIS countries" and what caused this... Maybe there even was no big drop and we have become victim of PR-trick... And even if there was "a drop" this could have been caused by something else then "Russian trade sanctions"... (Because) after the July 2013 Russian trade sanctions against Roshen I read nothing any more of any "Russian trade sanctions"... Did I miss something? I do not read Ukrainian news websites 24/7.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
okay, if not the sanctions themselves, then backroom pressure still applies, no? Azarov went to Moscow and came back calling the EU deal off saying 'we cant afford to lose Russia' (or something like that).--Львівське (говорити) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well can a cause of the main cause of the protests (the suspension of the European Union Association Agreement by the government) be called a cause of the protests? I would say that that is a bit too much detailed info for the infobox.... That is more info for in Euromaidan#Background. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!19:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The decline in industrial output isn't a PR trick. It's a combination of long-term issues exacerbated by Russia flexing its muscles. I agree with removing "trade sanctions" from the infobox. There's no way to convey the complex geopolitical causes in a couple words. The association agreement is fine as-is and was most definitely the immediate cause of the protests. Sai Weng (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Reuters: "Yanukovich's opponents mustered 200,000 people in Kiev on Sunday to call for his removal and for a free trade pact with the European Union, which Yanukovich rejected last month after threats from Russia to cut off gas supplies and block Ukrainian imports. They have called for a new demonstration on Tuesday. Many of those protesting say they fear greater influence from the Kremlin, which exerted oppressive power over Ukrainians during the Soviet period". The causation seems pretty straight forward here. --Львівське (говорити) 06:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That actually reinforces my thinking. The immediate causes were the EU pact and calls for his resignation, with Russia belonging in the background section. Sai Weng (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there seems to be a logical fallacy and this is what Yulia Romero has already pointed out.
Let us say that "A" is the cause, "B" is the effect and "C" is the final consequence. A1 (economic situation in Ukraine), A2 (Russian trade measures over the summer 2013), A3 (strict conditions of IMF loan), etc. -> B (Ukrainian government decides not to sign the Agreement) -> C (people are angry and go in the streets). People may be angry at many things but the main reason why they are on the streets is the government's failure to sign the deal. What you are saying is that people are on the streets not because the Ukrainian government did not sign the agreement but because Russia applied pressure and they made a declaration one week since they had been on the Square. In other words, if the Ukrainian government would have signed the deal, people would have anyway been on the Square because of the Russian pressure. In other words, you claim that A2 is in fact B. This is not entirely accurate.
But even that is not relevant since this constitutes our WP:OR which Wikipedia does not allow. What matters is that the reference must directly support the text. Because the quotation does not specifically says that people are on the streets because Russia applied sanctions, it cannot be used. Finally, "many protesters" is not specific and is considered as a Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words which Wikipedia does not accept either.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The neutrality of this article is disputed... by 1 user....
I just removed the pov-tag that was today added by Lihaas without indiction what is actually POV about this article in its current state... Wikipedia is a collective effore and thus if 1 user decided this article is POV and no other user agrees with that; that means the article is not POV... Especially since Lihaas has made no indication what he believes is POV about this article and does not respond to critisism of the information sources he uses (see Talk:Euromaidan#Links).
So do us all a favour Lihaas and state below what is POV about this article in its current state. If you do not wish to do so; I have no other choose then to think your opinions about what is POV or not are irrelevant and your adding of POV-tags here or anywhere else is none other then Wikipedia:Vandalism. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before and I'll say it again: you guys are pleasant to work with and willing to listen to those who disagree with you. See WP:ARBEURO (all of Eastern Europe was put under "Wikipedia sanctions" -- amusing given the section above) for the alternative. Sai Weng (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance of online petition to the White House, in "Demands" paragraph???
under "Demands" the article reads:
"A petition to the U.S. White House demanding sanctions against Viktor Yanukovych and Ukrainian government ministers gathered over 100,000 signatures in four days."
an online petition to the US White House makes no sense in the context of EU frameworks discussions with a european nation. That 100.000 or 1.000.000 or one gazillion or whatever signatures are put online of the White House site, very well, but what's the point in a case concerning EU and Ukraine?
I know about that fact (the online petition) like for instance, as commented, with petition text provided, in KyivPost [5]
but I can't see how it finds its place in a serious article about the protests around EU negociations.
The petition is extremely laughable because:
- USA has nothing to do here. And even worse: the role of USA and NATO in Europe relatively to EU is a disputed, polemic point among the population of the older core EU nations.
- to ask USA to implement sanctions on Yanukovich just because he refuses to sign an agreement with EU, is in itself of the upmost ridicule. Also to want that he be baned from entering ... the EU. Hell, USA has no say in who will or will not enter EU.
The petition is so much laughable that it is worth to mention its text here:
"On the 21 November 2013 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has adopted resolution to suspend the preparation process to conclude Association Agreement with European Union. We cannot accept the fact that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and his government deny the right of the people of Ukraine to become closer to the Western civilization. We demand to impose personal sanctions on Mr Yanukovych and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine members unless Mr Yanukovych signs the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement during Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius, Lithuania on 29 November 2013: The sanctions should include but not be limited to:
- Ban to enter the U.S. and EU for Mr Yanukovych and Ukraine government members families.
- Freeze bank accounts of companies affiliated with them"
the first silly misconception is related to the ideological misuse originating in anglosphere, of the wording "Western civilization". Well, western civilization is simply: the european civilization, and both Ukraine and Russia do belong to it. Russia belongs to the Western Civilization long before the first anglo-dutch colonists put their feet on Northern America and robbed the land to the natives...
Both Ukraine and Russia are part of the slavic family of languages, both are part of the christian heritage and for a big part of Ukraine, of the Orthodoxy, and both have a common historical foundation at the time of the varanguian structured states of Kiev and Novgorod. Much later, names like Pushkin, Dostoievski, Tolstoy, Chaikovski, Stravinsky, etc, are important names of the ... western civilization. At Englihtment times, Sankt-Peterburg was one of the hubs of european culture and french was a language of choice among the higher russian classes. Soviet Union itself was the effect of how a french-inspired german philosophy was brought in among russian intellectuals (Marx was german, and Bolsheviks also inspired by the extreme left-wing of the French Revolution). Even more: much of the important Old Bolsheviks were not russian (Berzin: lithuanian, Peters, latvian, Dzherzinsky the daddy of the Tcheka was polak, Beria and Stalin were georgians, Trostsky was ukrainian! Kaganovich also, etc).
The East/West label became a simplistic labelling at the time of Cold War, a geographical labelling for an ideological split, but nothing more. Like in East-Germany (former DDR) and West-Germany for instance. But both do belong the same cultural and historical family.
After Cold War ended, the split stopped but american governments and much american scholars have kept using the wording under the assumption that "Western" means "American" and that USA's destiny is to be the world supervisor. That's the special new ideological context for the current use of "western civilization" in anglosphere.
Not only that online petition is quite silly, but also it makes wonder WHAT do part of the english influenced younger generation in Ukraine have in mind about Europe and EU. It's quite puzzling, and somewhat worrying.
Like when Yatsenyuk declared that Yanukovich "spit in the face of America" by not signing the EU agreement.
It could be interesting to know how many among the 100.000 signatures are ukrainian, because the more, the worst the problem of cultural knowledge and representation of own's ... heritage.
If should be clear that the present comment is only for reminding of very obvious facts of culture in Europe, relatively to the mentioned petition, so it doesn't come with referencing data (abundant everywhere around). And btw, the petition itself provides no references to substain its own wording.
Wow, one line really ruffled your feathers here. I think the point of the petition is that it was a) covered in the press, so it was relevant and b) had enough traction to get over 100k in 4 days. The demands are neither here nor there, it's not up to us to judge how silly they may or may not be.--Львівське (говорити) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
your opinion or mine are irrelevant here. Facts are: USA isn't EU. A petition asking USA to ban Yanukovich from entering EU is therefore pure non-sense. It's totally out of jurisdictional and contextual meaning. But my former comment about the other silly point in the petition (the "western" civilization stuff) probably did occult somewhat the issue with your edit: that petition is no different in nature of any personal blog or web comment. It's not a statement or a demand from one of the parts involved in the events. It's not coming from a party leader, or governement member or any of the entities involved (ukrainian parties, politicians, governement, EU, Ukraine or Russia speaker). It's just someone writing some personal anonymous text and publishing it on the petition site of the White House, which also hosts whatever from very serious to utterly ridiculous. So: removal. AntonioB 10:32, 19.12.2013 (CET). —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article from The Economist
I found an interesting article from The Economist [6] and I think it will be a good idea to include some information from it within the main article Euromaidan. The article from The Economist has interesting point about Ukraine (Yanukovych) rejecting the European Union agreement and may be preparing Ukraine to join the Eurasian Union instead.
Just some citations from The Economist:
"Mr Putin may have extracted a promise from Mr Yanukovych to clear the streets of protesters and join the Eurasian union before or just after the 2015 presidential election. But Mr Yanukovych’s ability to honour such a promise without sparking a civil conflict is uncertain to say the least. For a large part of the country, including Kiev and western Ukraine, joining the Eurasian union would be an existential threat. Yet for Mr Putin, who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century and who sees himself as a gatherer of Russian territories, no price is too high to keep Ukraine in Russia’s orbit."
And second citation from The Economist:
"Mr Putin’s victory and Europe’s loss seem less obvious. Probably Mr Yanukovych never intended to sign an agreement with the EU—certainly not without being paid for it. By keeping up the pretence, he was able to bargain with Mr Putin, who has now agreed to provide money without Mr Yanukovych having signed a deal to join his Eurasian customs union."
while possibly true (there was the Edwards rumor that the deal of financial aid and trade would come with a handshake to join the customs union, 2/3rds of which have come true now) this is just conjecture at this point. Also, the EU was prepared to give 20 billion euros in loans, dwarfing the Russian offer; Yanu is going for the long con here, the CU/EUA seems likely but still...just guesswork.--Львівське (говорити) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, a big concert program is planned on Independence Square on the New Year's Eve. Modern Talking and Pink Floyd, as well as various Ukrainian bands and performers, have been invited to perform on Independence Square, Blavatsky said."
Well people who are denied entry to Ukraine, can not visit Ukraine.... I did wrote "for now". It seems that for the time being; he can not visit Ukraine... I am not sure how long that time will be. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!16:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A death?
1, 2 - guy was allegedly beaten by Berkut, then died. Police are saying cause of death was pneumonia. What does everyone think of this and how should it go into the article? --Львівське (говорити) 17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we include it in the article but use the same wording as is done in Wiki-article Bonus Army:
When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good."
This interfax article on it has all statements and timeline, he did sustain injuries...I don't feel confident translating this, Google is giving me too many weird words I feel I may flub to put in proper context.--Львівське (говорити) 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That death is not related to the protests although it did happened at the Independence Square. However, there was another death of a man who died in hospital due to severe beating by Berkut riot police. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
POR is trying to get a bill through that will give berkut officers who beat protesters amnesty from the law 1. Should this be in the article / where? Or is this 'domestic response'?--Львівське (говорити) 23:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start developing the TOP sub-article already(
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm feeling a little bit lonely developing the demonstrably TOP-IMPORTANT article of the whole Euromaidan category(((. Several paragraphs from here belong there - as well as hundreds of new refs needed for that widely-reported, controversial and enigmatic event. The topic of December 1 will be alive for years to come, regardless of the campaign's outcome. That's why developing it's coverage inside this article would soon make the latter extra-long and unreadable. I really need all your help there. Thanks in advance, Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we're splitting off the article now? I think it's best to just take what's in the current Euromaidan article, we got everything from that day covered and just add in all the reaction related to it and an info box. I've watch listed it and will try to help when I can.--Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about creating a (stand alone) article about "anti-protest laws" that were (sort of....) passed by Ukr. parliament on 16 January 2014 and that is now wildly covered in (section) Euromaidan#January 2014. Would that be a good thing? It would look like (I think) Wiki-article "Russian foreign agent law" and/or Wiki-article "Legislation on languages in Ukraine". Not sure about tittle for article... "'anti-protest' laws" seems most used in English media... but sounds POV-pushy... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ive been using 'pro-government protesters' for...pro-gov guys, and antimaidan protesters for the other ones like cossacks and russian bloc guys.--Львівське (говорити) 15:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another MUST-HAVE subarticle
Ladies and gentlemen, ongoing Kyiv Hrushevskoho Street riot is a spontaneous, out-of-Euromaidan-control event that can be developed in a separate article ONLY. None of the leaders endorsed or claimed control of this riot. The only movt. role is to provide paramedic help - something they were already doing all across central business district. Besides, the riot is an event so huge it wouldn't fit in this overgrown article anyway. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's very much part of euromaidan and within the scope of the maidan protests, but i agree we can split it. I do not agree with having it in a separate article "only". All of the leaders are involved in the riots and are there, all are involved in the titushky situation, klitschko went down there and got sprayed, etc. --Львівське (говорити) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Splits
regarding the splits of the major demonstrations, I think the way it's being handled isn't the best (with regard to the previous riots article) - since the articles are smaller than the sections on this page. Might be better to just cut/paste the large text from here to make the new article, and just do a 1 paragraph summary in its place on this page. I'm going to do that with the new riot article. --Львівське (говорити) 18:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done a few seconds ago. She did gave a speech to the protesters so you could say she actively participated and not just took a walk on the square. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
