Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12014/March

This is an archive of past discussions about Euromaidan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is no mention about the money factor, that the EU was willing to give 838 million US in loans/aid, and that Russia was willing to give 15 Billion in loans plus cheapers gas prices, and that the EU required changes in laws and regulations whilst Russia did not, so I am going to add this information Yesnoupdown1234 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

out of 400 sources not a single one from RT site? is it banned from this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.134.230 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RT is a joke and in no way could it be regarded as a credible source any more that writings on the wall in public toilets could be regarded as reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.0.196 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Take your POV to a forum not here because i can say the same about websites like Euronews. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RT is literally the most unreliable source there is. Let's cut the crap here, it's not news, its fantasy propaganda a good portion of the time. Independent news sources are reliable, state news agencies aren't.--Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I also see a lot of "fantasy propaganda" in Time World and NYT among others, and i know RT can be crap sometimes. I also agree we can't use it in articles like this one where it is too close to the subject and has interests in the events. But on the same logic i think we shouldn't use websites like Euronews. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

yep, either exclude sources from all interested parties, east and west, or include all.. for the sake of NPOV.... 101.108.23.138 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How is Euronews in a conflict of interest? I mean just speaking as someone who has read RT and watched their videos, the have been known for blatantly lying about the situation. I understand Euronews may be favorable but AFAIK they don't skew facts. Framing a story is one thing (every news agency does it) but lying is another, and it's the facts we have to pull out of sources and not the rhetoric or tone. They are also known for using unaccredited figures and bloggers as 'experts' (which I guess Fox News does a lot too to push their POV).--Львівське (говорити) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And just speaking as someone who has read/followed/watched both RT and Euronews, i'm telling you that none are reliable covering Euromaidan or any similar EU-Russia conflict. RT might be stauncher yes, so you can easily catch the propaganda. Euronews on the other hand, is a lot smarter when claiming neutrality and they're experts when it comes to using an emotional tone but making it somehow appear neutral. They do distort facts sometimes and they also lie. I remember a while ago when they were covering the reactions to Ariel Sharon's death where they interviewed Egyptians as if they were Gazans. How can you know they don't inject false details between the lines in something as sensitive as Euromaidan? In my opinion, i believe none are reliable in this case and i think all Euronews refs here should be replaced by alternatives like Reuters for example. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Personally, I don't read Euronews and I don't think I've ever used them as a reference. Someone on this talk page actually recommended it to me as a more reliable source than say, KP; I guess that's not the case. I agree Reuters would be better, but it also depends on what's being referenced. If it's a quote or a specific event or action that's real, sure, I don't see why that would be false - if it's framed perspective and we're using their analysis here, then yeah, resource it. --Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, we have this section detailing how fraudulent Russian media has been so far. Using it as an RS on a highly sensitive topic like this would be trouble.--Львівське (говорити) 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Never trust RT:it is not a mass media, it's just a Putin's propaganda channel. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

case in point, check out this screen shot I just took here: "Scores killed after violent clashes as security forces restore order - Protesters in Ukraine fire at RT crew" --Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Never trust Wikipedia:it is not a media outlet, but a Cheer-leader for the US policy. A keen supporter staging Color Revolts, to undermine elected leader and countries linked to Russia. You see, if the Spin Doctors are allowed to sex-up information and make sweeping statements - what is to stop anyone else? 89.240.218.187 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess Russia sources are now very relevant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.221.148 (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

does not seems to exist... Remember that Wikipedia is about not choosing sides in a conflict (hence I have been putting in these "Yanu said he does good" etc things in the article the last weeks... I never did that because I agreed or disagreed with him)... We are here to inform about Euromaidan... not to make one party in the conflict as bad as we can... And that seems to whole intention of the section Euromaidan#Repressions_against_protesters_and_parliamentarian_opposition right now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

phrasing might be a neutrality issue but i think it's a lot of original research more than anything, "police said X(ref1) but then the truth came out(ref2)" like that. Synthesis? --Львівське (говорити) 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

this whole section is turning into a POV list, and a lot of its content is just duplicate stuff from the rest of the article / timeline of events. Turning into original research. --Львівське (говорити) 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the "Russian Factor" section because it looked like blatant original research / synthesis. --Львівське (говорити) 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, that is not groundlessly. (please, see Avakov: To the bloody events in Kiev was involved the third force). Also there was a recent video footage on the program "Exclamation Mark!" on TVi which puts in question of sniping the Ukrainian citizens by the Ukrainian special operations units or law enforcement formations. Also there were statements made Inna Bohoslovska that there was utilization of snipers from the Russian Federation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about.--Львівське (говорити) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more information about pro-government rallies and anti-maidans than Euromaidan protests in this section. Yes, you get the whole thing if you click "Timeline of the Euromaidan," but I think there should be a larger summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

just keep in mind that before we split it into separate articles, those euromaidan events dwarfed the anti-maidan section 100x over. Yes, we still need to provide summaries of those articles on this page (but I guess we're all busy) --Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe move part of that section to Antimaidan (Антимайдан)? NickSt (talk)
• Y Due to absense of the opposite votes and arguments, section moved to Antimaidan. NickSt (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I think it's very neutral, nearly 200 references so far in short time, care you point out issues or are you just trying to vent frustration?--Львівське (говорити) 07:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia" - speak for yourself, please. 148.88.244.42 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You (ore somebody else) are again proofing that you are not interested in neutrality... + Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject. I above did not say "Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia"; I said "in Russia there is a large group that can not accept that Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the IP user called the pro-EU rallies "pro-chaos" says enough about their perceived stance on the issue.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

If you feel the need do not hesitate to ask for semi-protection for IP's editing this page. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

PS 1 of these IP's has started to threaten me... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have warned him or her, please drop me a note if the harassment continues Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We are real people, who request a neutral and detailed encyclopedia, and it is you who started threatening me with private messages (3 already).

Not the contrary.

So if you want to revert something for propaganda and confusion purposes, try to do it intelligently at least.

Not deleting all of it and putting "civilians" in your camp.

Sadly, nobody is omniscient, so use precise words or quit.

Nicolas P, out. 82.243.130.139 (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For thee record I asked "Nicolas P" to be civil and assume good faith; I had no further interaction with him. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the right to ask me "to assume good faith" by spamming me, because you didn't do the same in your case.

You just clicked "revert all" and helped keep a completely ridiculous page that way, which is, the classical "Europe or Middle ages" propaganda coup.

The problem is, you aslo edited heavily the Ukrainian-UE page in the past.

So help me "assume good faith" first, and i will more easily.

Out and over. 82.243.130.139 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude; I did never touched your edits (actually I agreed with them!)... See here. I only object(ed) to your very aggressive way you use the edit summary function on Wikipedia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I actually prefered the IP's version of the Infobox since we have no solid proof these Criminal formations (titushky) are controlled by the Government. There are drunk men looking for a fight in many towns of the world. Inna Bohoslovska is not a very reliable source... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just started Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12013/December#Criminal_formations_.28titushky.29_in_the_Infobox for a discussion that hopefully will end inn a decision on this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Language in this article is embarrassing and shows a clear bias, the word violent doesn't have to be randomly interjected in front of government every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.244.95 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

the irony is that you're coming off as very pro-regime right now. It's all about WP:WEIGHT, and right now I'd say things are proportionate considering the situation. Please give concrete specific suggestions about neutrality in the article.--Львівське (говорити) 05:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "Thugs" - just want to point out that this is a synonym used in media and not just a POV/neutrality thing. "titushki," the slang term for government-hired thugs" - kyiv post --Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the differences between a "revolution" and a coup d'etat made by some nazi oligarchs??? [Stephke] — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephkeSchwing. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the Euromaidan still ongoing? Didn't it end in the Ukrainian Revolution? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, ongoing. Maybe until Ukrainian presidential election, 2014. NickSt (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• People still protest because they want Russia to withdraw its troops from Crimea. They also protest because they don't want Ukraine to split. Another reason they protest is to pressure the new government and make sure that they do what the people want. The first demand of Euromaidan is actually still unmet, which is the signing of the EU deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as people are in tents on Maidan, Maidan continues. I think once the EU agreement is signed in a few weeks it'll finally be officially over. Then on to other matters...--Львівське (говорити) 22:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing the amount of people, it's not 10000. Let's say 5000-7000, most major news sites stick to that range. I am for the protests, but I don't want false information to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone unilaterally lengthened the title with unnecessary disambiguation and couldn't even close the bracket. I call for this to be undone immediately. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, any administrators out there?--Smerus (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I had to move the talk page manually because it had a closing paren (the article did not). Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The section Initial_causes start with a paragraph about Ukranian president asking for loan to EU. First the source is talking about talking the Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov not the president. Secondly, the paragraph is kind of out of context as it describes a december 2013 event even before introducing the EU-agreement context.

It would be great if someone familiar with the topic could review this section as the chronology and causality between this loan request/offer and the Euromaidan isn't clear at all.  - lyhana8 (Talk) 02:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)