![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
==I would suggest that the person who asked "who runs this [...] site" reflect on the possibility that Wikipedia is indeed user-run and user-written, but that a careful, patient, and unrelenting effort to influence the article to reflect a specific point of view (in this case that the overthrow of Yanukovitch can legitimately be referred to as a "revolution") can succeed over the long term in making that point of view prevail historiographically - as, for example, the Single Assassin Theory is being made to prevail (or was the last time I looked) in the article on the JFK assassination. An example of what I mean by "careful" is the inclusion of a mention of the US/NATO's documented role in the overthrow of Yanukovitch to avoid accusations of blatant ignorance of the facts while at the same time representing it as a mere accusation on the part of Russia.== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev , By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News, 25 March 14 (unsigned section added by anon. user w/ I.P. address 97.65.237.209)
I have been watching it for about a week, hopeing that it will present a balanced picture. I have been disapointed. Some guys put up a little fight, trying to put some balance into it but there is a concerted effort to make sure that non-US sources are avoided like the plague. In particular Volunteer Markel HATES RT with vengence. About time someone zotted his privaleges on WP. His love affair with BBC and the gang is sickening. Eventhough RT does report from a Russian view point, it is far less biased than the BBC. Just look at the reporting of the Iraq war and Syria conflict. By activly deleting RT sources Volunteer Markel is working aginst the principles of WP and waring against truth, peace and true democracy. STOP IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToMesmerise ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
title should be changed to 2014 Western Ukrainian revolution-- Crossswords ( talk) 08:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The intercepted cell phone call by Victoria Nuland, in which she spelled out who ought to be in the next government, received extensive coverage, and could be interpreted as evidence that the U.S. was manipulating the outcome of the protests. Why is there no mention of it in this article? Joe Bodacious ( talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I have entered a translation of the German Wikipedia article including its references to English and German mainstream papers and stated the paragraph in WP approriate form. I see a removal of the passage as an attempt to utter a biased opinion "Russia and Yanukovych but also voices from influential Western newspapers like Der Spiegel or The Telegraph see the revolution as a form of coup d'etat because the movement would have acted against a democratically elected president. Moreover they claim that the Yanukovych ousting contradicted several principles of both the old and the new text of the Ukrainian constitution" GeorgeDorgan ( talk) 05:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I entered a well-documented translation of the German Wikipedia into this page, concerning the opinion that the revolution was a coup d'etat. This translation got directly deleted by the Ukrainian censor of this page Львівське with the name of the Western Ukrainian town. Why is the German Wikipedia allowed to represent different PVs but the Ukranian, sorry English page, only the Ukrainian POV ????
Why don't you continue your censorship on the German page ??
GeorgeDorgan ( talk) 06:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If 2013 Egypt events are categorized as a coup (see category), then how come this article cannot? Double standards? -- Patriot Donbassa ( talk) 10:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Please edit page in order to reflect accurately the events as they are becoming better sourced to reflect this new sourced information:
The following line:
By 13:00 on 20 February at least 34 protesters more had been shot dead by police, with reporters verifying the bodies (15 at the Kozatsky Hotel, 12 at the Ukraine Hotel, 7 at the Central Post Office).[159]
Source given is : "Ukraine death toll rising on Feb. 20 with at least 42 people killed, most by gunshots from police". Kyiv Post. 20 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014.
The source , Kyiv Post ITSELF even ADMITS and that the 35 death toll and does not even _claim_ to be able to identify the police as the responsible. To boot : Later on the sources claim the murders were carried out by special forces and NOT the Police.
the article even states clearly:
"Most of the victims appeared to have been victims of gunshot wounds from police and shot near October Palace this morning as protesters advanced on police."
This goes for ALL admins patrolling this page: If you feel you're admin enough to remove entries on talk pages, you should have enough honesty to correct blatant lies when you get them pointed out to you as well. The BBC Newsnight team and the German documentary on the fact that fire on the demonstrators contain incontrovertible evidence that fire came from the Maidan controlled Hotel and radio recordings of the police conversations on radio shows they do not know who is firing and the firing is coming from other buildings. No written order to fire on the demonstrators exists and no one in the Yanukovic government would have dared put their name on such a document - none of the Police accepted or could accept anything but written orders for such firing or risk getting accused of and jailed for carrying out actions they had no authority to carry out. These are now KNOWN facts _throughout_ western academia and will be part of ALL official political institutes publications. Please show some absolute bare minimum and remove the claim I referred to as the source has been proven both wrong and not a credible source anymore. Or do you suggest we use Nazi newspapers from WWII as credible sources on the invasion and occupation of Poland and all the other occupied countries. Please do not try to stifle actual facts. As a self confessed Marxist as one of your admins / patrollers should find it easy to support accuracy and reliability as well as finding it easy to remove inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events. Also the _claim_ in Kyiv Post that Police shot and killed 34 people does not make it so, is not enough as source - it does not constitute a serious criminal investigation and it is at best hearsay. Please act as an adult or refrain from trying to re-edit when I remove the erroneous entry myself tomorrow if the entry has not been corrected. I will post your edits or lack of such along with this post to you and other admins accross usenet and academic sites if you fail to bother complying to your own (Wikipedia) rules, guidelines and policies here as admin patrolling that page and the talk page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU
Broadcast on german state television on the 10.4.2014 this investigative report presents evidence for their having been snipers from among the ranks of the opposition, shooting at their own people at Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. The show is called Monitor, and it was screened on WDR which is part of the state broadcaster ARD. With english subtitles.
You can choose your own reliable sources from Google:
or use these:
http://orientalreview.org/2014/04/03/kiev-snipers-the-regime-and-yanukovych/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26284100
The complete video by the BBC team online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3R_BSz0Cc
if you fail to find the BBC Newsnight reportage with google, I will aid you or supply the links myself.
(already supplied above)
Now you have more than TWO reputable links (check google results) that document the falsehoods of the Kyiv post statement.
I trust you take the appropriate action that any decent adult would do with any bare minimum of honesty and integrity left in him or her. That is if you really are a half decent admins as you all seem to say on your pages and not just a paid cover or left gatekeepers. I trust you set your honesty and dignity higher if you are not. I wont bother listening to, reading or wasting time replying to juvenile retorts, attempts at discrediting sources or any other dishonest attempts at "disqualifying" me. Posts to my page will be deleted if they contain any such juvenile crap. Please stay on topic, refrain from doing anything or do what is honorable. I have nothing further to discuss or communicate with you.
Good day to you sirs. Nunamiut ( talk) 06:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This passes for what in who's reality exactly? The evidence of shots from the Maidan Hotel and a mainstream german documentary does not impress the dishonest gentleman I take it. Congrat's sir. Your grasp of the english language is equally impressive: "inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events". What kind of logic is that supposed to represent. Or better yet: _what_ if anything at all, DOES it mean???
and btw:
http://orientalreview.org/2014/05/29/who-was-maidan-snipers-mastermind/ 46.15.224.112 ( talk) 05:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll draw your attention to the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article Coup d'état
"A coup d'état, also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government, usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military."
The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 fits this description exactly. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that this article is not entitled the Ukrainian Coup. ------ Greatestrowerever Talk Page 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Welcome to our encyclopedia. With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for any political views by anybody. Thank you. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand their (both Western and Eastern Ukrainians') anger at the government for failing them - over and over - but the Ukrainian police, by and large, have been handing over their weapons and gear, and many of the men in the Ukrainian military have been doing the same - and getting beaten for their trouble. None of this is being recorded here. I am largely unbiased as I have no stake in any of it, no family and only one friend from Ukraine, and she is not talking about it. I have been writing news for several years, since even before I got my degree in journalism, and I think it is time to make a fair and accurate edit of this page. And while I appreciate the work that has gone into it, it does Wikipedia a disservice to allow inaccurate and biased information to be posted about an issue this sensitive and controversial. -- ( talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not move to "February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" but some are open for other option. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
( non-admin closure)
2014 Ukrainian revolution → February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych – In international media the events desscribed in this Wikipedia article are by now (16 June 2014) never described as "a revolution", hence it is not commonly called "a revolution". BBC News in practicly all its articles about Ukraine (these days) describes the events as "February's ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" — --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2014 Ukrainian revolution → Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych – In international media the events described in this Wikipedia article are by now (July 2014) not so much described with the term "revolution", hence it is not commonly called "a revolution". BBC News in practically all its articles about Ukraine (these days) describes the events as " overthrow". In all English media reports I read (a.o. Washington Post) about the events that deal with this article I never saw the word "revolution" (OK I did not read all English media reports...). "Overthrow" is also used in Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Should be Coup d'etat instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV, The term "Ukrainian revolution" is currently used only by the English Wikipedia, while most other Wikis commonly use the term "Euromaidan".
I emphasized that the term "revolution" is a often accepted opinion, but not necessarily a fact GeorgeDorgan ( talk) 05:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a revolution. Even eng wiki says that revolution is:
"1.Complete change from one constitution to another
2.Modification of an existing constitution".
In Ukraine, they didn't change anything about constitution, they changed their president. Nothing more.
nope, that was not enough to call revolution. Every month someone changes something. Но ты же ведь и по-русски понимаешь, не так ли? ;) Революция - это изменение конституционного строя, а не пара поправок. — Preceding unsigned 2014 (UTC)
Тебе английским по белому написано, что такое революция. Несколько поправок в конституцию - это не революция. Если бы перешли к процессу федерализации страны - это можно было бы назвать революцией. Если бы решили упразднить должность президента как таковую - это была бы революция. Если бы объявили абсолютную монархию - это тоже была бы революция. А поправки... Они каждые два месяца вносятся. Т.е. революция во всех странах мира идёт непрерывно с момента утверждения их конституции. Ну с тобой спорить бесполезно, ты это статью "держишь", судя по частоте мелькания твоего ника в этом обсуждении, а у меня нет столько свободного времени, чтобы мешать тебе форсить дорогую твоему сердцу "революцию".
Several insignificant amendments is not enough to call this coup d'état revolution. Everyone undestands that =) So you may think anything you want, but nothing changed in our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.60.6 ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Svidomits make flatout false statements just like their illigal goverment. Coup it is and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.88.84 ( talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The term revolution is always problematic as it implies approval.. While the word "coup" would signify disaproval and would be a bit missleading as a coup usually makes people think about military coups where the military takes control. A better word would be "regime change" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.32.34.124 (
talk)
23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The role of ultranationalist groups (Svoboda, Right Sector) in Revolution in minified and blurred over. No facts about this, while these things did take place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY
The position of some major politicains who are in opposition to the current European officials, should also be presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXoit9P7kc8
By the way, for instance, in the article "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" the role of pro-russian so-called "ultranstionalist" is boosted and stated in the first sentence: "Since the end of February 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian, ultranationalist,[41][42][43] and anti-government groups have taken place in major cities across the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine".
93.187.186.90 ( talk) 13:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems an odd choice of words for the article title. Surely Ukrainian Coup d'état would be a more accurate description of the events?-- 78.145.141.68 ( talk) 21:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This was not coup, under any legitimate definition of that term. It is doubtful that it was a revolution either. Mass demonstrations, followed by the president leaving the country, followed by the appointment of an acting president according to the constitution. That is neither a violent overthrow of authority nor an illegal change of power. Ironic that Wikipedia should be minded to call this a revolution, yet baulks at calling the Russian invasion of Crimea an invasion. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Would the name Ukrainian Coup not be a more accurate name for this article?-- 64.134.224.138 ( talk) 01:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I know it has been discussed at length whether or not to re-name this page as Ukrainian Coup an there has been no consensus. However due to the fact that a google search for Ukrainian Coup delivers over 4 Million results this is just too great a number to be ignored and thus not at least having a mention in the first line is at least POV and at worst deliberately mis-leading the reader.
Therefore I am going to be bold update the first line to include both the names Ukrainian Revolution and Ukrainian Coup. Discussion welcome. -- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss. First, because it already has been discussed to death and the answer was a big NO. Second because it's an obvious attempt at POV pushing based on wacky sources and Kremlin propaganda. So stop wasting people's time. Even if Google search gave you bazillion hits for the phrase, if these are not reliable sources, we don't give a fig. The term used in reliable sources is revolution.
Also, since you appear to be familiar with Wikipedia enough to be leaving template warnings on user's talk page, I gotta ask, you got another account here? A previous one perhaps? Volunteer Marek 19:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly I used the term Team Ukraine because i'd already read through the archives above and that term had been previously used to describe the vocal and petulant Ukrainians peddling their own POV agenda. Calling a Coup a Revolution instead is incredibly politically charged and misleading. However that is not the issue here. The issue is that across global published media the terms Revolution and Coup are both used to describe the events in Ukraine in 2014 and therefore this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. -- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not impute a sincere intention on the part of Y. if the WP:RS consensus does not support it. He did what he did, the majority of Uk. citizens do NOT agree with the Russia Today interpretations which are not WP:NPOV. Thank you in advance. Wikidgood ( talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the name of this article is strange. No-one calls this the Ukrainian Revolution. Most people refer to it as either the Ukrainian Coup or the Ukrainian Coup d'état - certainly that is the case in the UK where I am. I've never heard anyone call it a revolution - only a coup. Perhaps the article title should be changed to reflect its more common name? -- 85.255.234.84 ( talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The title and entire contents are false here. It is well documented that this was not a revolution but rather a coup organised by NATO and the USK military industrial complex. That's why the current Kiev regime is being resisted by people in the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.75.172 ( talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The claim that the events can be described as revolution is a biased (also any further claims deriving from the assumption this must be true). The other POV is that this is about an externally backed coup. So the terms revolution and coup are not neutral until there is historical consensus about this. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.181.135 ( talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
BBC, one of the most reliable sources going are calling it a coup [1]. User:Johnny B 22:10, 25 February2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.68.22 ( talk)
I don't think this page can be classified as neutral as it is.
There is no special section for foreign leaders who spoke on the Maidan. Yet many people see the presence of people like Ashton on the Maidan where she gave a speech in support of the protests as a severe violation of the principle of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries. In this context it is also strange that the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and ambassador Pyatt about who should rule Ukraine isn't mentioned. In my opinion this should be in a paragraph 2.2: Western involvement.
I recommend including something from the following NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html This gives background to the Russian advice to Yanukovich on how to deal with the protests - that was largely ignored - and paints it as sound from the tactical point of view. 83.86.53.85 ( talk) 11:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This is just in and reported on several outlets. I think it should definitely be included in this article since this shows that the so-called "revolution" wasn't simply a revolution but was a calculated ouster funded/supported by nations including the US (for geopolitical reasons).
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150201/1017625288.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS-Fighter ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere else. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand the former Prime Minister of Ukraine is planning to form government in exile [2] If correct, this should be added. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just taking a look at this article, I am not particularly comfortable with its tone and content.
Starting with its unquestioning characterisation of the events starting in 2014 as a "revolution" (in line, mind with the so-called "colour revolutions") and its subsequent coverage, the article fails to convey a balanced point of view and to sufficiently describe and contrast the various positions as regards the situation. In fact, it reads a bit like a run-of-the-mill best-seller: the impossibly bad Bad Guys, the Good Guys (with minor defects, to make them more relatable to the audience), ... we're only lacking some romance! :-)
Joking aside, for example the third paragraph in the introduction mentions Russia 'calling the revolution a "coup d'état"'. Considering that, according to the article's very own (unreferenced) "fact box" one of the goals of the "revolution" was the "ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych", it would seem that "2014 Ukrainian Coup d'État" would be at least as equally fitting a name for this article. Yet, there is no qualification of the term "revolution" that has been chosen.
Equally, the rest of the article has a pronounced Western bias. This is in part expected given that a large part of the (utterly non-academic, but then again this is Wikipedia) sources are in English and therefore written by or directed to a Western audience, as opposed to a local, regional, or non-Western audience. However, of those Ukrainian and (only one?) Russian-language citations there are, the majority of references used come from sources such as Ukrayinska Pravda ("Ukrainian Truth") and the Kiev Post, both of which are eminently pro-Western (this is not a criticism of those sources per se).
I do not believe or suggest that there is a deliberate attempt at manipulating Wikipedia by presenting a specific point of view, but merely that the editorship's work has been a bit lacking in this article by using in an uncritical manner those sources that are the easiest for a Western, English-speaking editor to find and interpret.
I suggest that this and related articles (e.g., Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis is downright embarrassing) be reviewed and contrasted for neutrality, and all news sources (where they must be used at all) be treated critically—but with especial care taken when dealing with those coming from the same cultural background as the editor, as the bias in those is the most difficult to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.179 ( talk) 23:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
==I would suggest that the person who asked "who runs this [...] site" reflect on the possibility that Wikipedia is indeed user-run and user-written, but that a careful, patient, and unrelenting effort to influence the article to reflect a specific point of view (in this case that the overthrow of Yanukovitch can legitimately be referred to as a "revolution") can succeed over the long term in making that point of view prevail historiographically - as, for example, the Single Assassin Theory is being made to prevail (or was the last time I looked) in the article on the JFK assassination. An example of what I mean by "careful" is the inclusion of a mention of the US/NATO's documented role in the overthrow of Yanukovitch to avoid accusations of blatant ignorance of the facts while at the same time representing it as a mere accusation on the part of Russia.== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev , By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News, 25 March 14 (unsigned section added by anon. user w/ I.P. address 97.65.237.209)
I have been watching it for about a week, hopeing that it will present a balanced picture. I have been disapointed. Some guys put up a little fight, trying to put some balance into it but there is a concerted effort to make sure that non-US sources are avoided like the plague. In particular Volunteer Markel HATES RT with vengence. About time someone zotted his privaleges on WP. His love affair with BBC and the gang is sickening. Eventhough RT does report from a Russian view point, it is far less biased than the BBC. Just look at the reporting of the Iraq war and Syria conflict. By activly deleting RT sources Volunteer Markel is working aginst the principles of WP and waring against truth, peace and true democracy. STOP IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToMesmerise ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
title should be changed to 2014 Western Ukrainian revolution-- Crossswords ( talk) 08:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The intercepted cell phone call by Victoria Nuland, in which she spelled out who ought to be in the next government, received extensive coverage, and could be interpreted as evidence that the U.S. was manipulating the outcome of the protests. Why is there no mention of it in this article? Joe Bodacious ( talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I have entered a translation of the German Wikipedia article including its references to English and German mainstream papers and stated the paragraph in WP approriate form. I see a removal of the passage as an attempt to utter a biased opinion "Russia and Yanukovych but also voices from influential Western newspapers like Der Spiegel or The Telegraph see the revolution as a form of coup d'etat because the movement would have acted against a democratically elected president. Moreover they claim that the Yanukovych ousting contradicted several principles of both the old and the new text of the Ukrainian constitution" GeorgeDorgan ( talk) 05:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I entered a well-documented translation of the German Wikipedia into this page, concerning the opinion that the revolution was a coup d'etat. This translation got directly deleted by the Ukrainian censor of this page Львівське with the name of the Western Ukrainian town. Why is the German Wikipedia allowed to represent different PVs but the Ukranian, sorry English page, only the Ukrainian POV ????
Why don't you continue your censorship on the German page ??
GeorgeDorgan ( talk) 06:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If 2013 Egypt events are categorized as a coup (see category), then how come this article cannot? Double standards? -- Patriot Donbassa ( talk) 10:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Please edit page in order to reflect accurately the events as they are becoming better sourced to reflect this new sourced information:
The following line:
By 13:00 on 20 February at least 34 protesters more had been shot dead by police, with reporters verifying the bodies (15 at the Kozatsky Hotel, 12 at the Ukraine Hotel, 7 at the Central Post Office).[159]
Source given is : "Ukraine death toll rising on Feb. 20 with at least 42 people killed, most by gunshots from police". Kyiv Post. 20 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014.
The source , Kyiv Post ITSELF even ADMITS and that the 35 death toll and does not even _claim_ to be able to identify the police as the responsible. To boot : Later on the sources claim the murders were carried out by special forces and NOT the Police.
the article even states clearly:
"Most of the victims appeared to have been victims of gunshot wounds from police and shot near October Palace this morning as protesters advanced on police."
This goes for ALL admins patrolling this page: If you feel you're admin enough to remove entries on talk pages, you should have enough honesty to correct blatant lies when you get them pointed out to you as well. The BBC Newsnight team and the German documentary on the fact that fire on the demonstrators contain incontrovertible evidence that fire came from the Maidan controlled Hotel and radio recordings of the police conversations on radio shows they do not know who is firing and the firing is coming from other buildings. No written order to fire on the demonstrators exists and no one in the Yanukovic government would have dared put their name on such a document - none of the Police accepted or could accept anything but written orders for such firing or risk getting accused of and jailed for carrying out actions they had no authority to carry out. These are now KNOWN facts _throughout_ western academia and will be part of ALL official political institutes publications. Please show some absolute bare minimum and remove the claim I referred to as the source has been proven both wrong and not a credible source anymore. Or do you suggest we use Nazi newspapers from WWII as credible sources on the invasion and occupation of Poland and all the other occupied countries. Please do not try to stifle actual facts. As a self confessed Marxist as one of your admins / patrollers should find it easy to support accuracy and reliability as well as finding it easy to remove inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events. Also the _claim_ in Kyiv Post that Police shot and killed 34 people does not make it so, is not enough as source - it does not constitute a serious criminal investigation and it is at best hearsay. Please act as an adult or refrain from trying to re-edit when I remove the erroneous entry myself tomorrow if the entry has not been corrected. I will post your edits or lack of such along with this post to you and other admins accross usenet and academic sites if you fail to bother complying to your own (Wikipedia) rules, guidelines and policies here as admin patrolling that page and the talk page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU
Broadcast on german state television on the 10.4.2014 this investigative report presents evidence for their having been snipers from among the ranks of the opposition, shooting at their own people at Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. The show is called Monitor, and it was screened on WDR which is part of the state broadcaster ARD. With english subtitles.
You can choose your own reliable sources from Google:
or use these:
http://orientalreview.org/2014/04/03/kiev-snipers-the-regime-and-yanukovych/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26284100
The complete video by the BBC team online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3R_BSz0Cc
if you fail to find the BBC Newsnight reportage with google, I will aid you or supply the links myself.
(already supplied above)
Now you have more than TWO reputable links (check google results) that document the falsehoods of the Kyiv post statement.
I trust you take the appropriate action that any decent adult would do with any bare minimum of honesty and integrity left in him or her. That is if you really are a half decent admins as you all seem to say on your pages and not just a paid cover or left gatekeepers. I trust you set your honesty and dignity higher if you are not. I wont bother listening to, reading or wasting time replying to juvenile retorts, attempts at discrediting sources or any other dishonest attempts at "disqualifying" me. Posts to my page will be deleted if they contain any such juvenile crap. Please stay on topic, refrain from doing anything or do what is honorable. I have nothing further to discuss or communicate with you.
Good day to you sirs. Nunamiut ( talk) 06:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This passes for what in who's reality exactly? The evidence of shots from the Maidan Hotel and a mainstream german documentary does not impress the dishonest gentleman I take it. Congrat's sir. Your grasp of the english language is equally impressive: "inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events". What kind of logic is that supposed to represent. Or better yet: _what_ if anything at all, DOES it mean???
and btw:
http://orientalreview.org/2014/05/29/who-was-maidan-snipers-mastermind/ 46.15.224.112 ( talk) 05:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll draw your attention to the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article Coup d'état
"A coup d'état, also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government, usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military."
The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 fits this description exactly. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that this article is not entitled the Ukrainian Coup. ------ Greatestrowerever Talk Page 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Welcome to our encyclopedia. With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for any political views by anybody. Thank you. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand their (both Western and Eastern Ukrainians') anger at the government for failing them - over and over - but the Ukrainian police, by and large, have been handing over their weapons and gear, and many of the men in the Ukrainian military have been doing the same - and getting beaten for their trouble. None of this is being recorded here. I am largely unbiased as I have no stake in any of it, no family and only one friend from Ukraine, and she is not talking about it. I have been writing news for several years, since even before I got my degree in journalism, and I think it is time to make a fair and accurate edit of this page. And while I appreciate the work that has gone into it, it does Wikipedia a disservice to allow inaccurate and biased information to be posted about an issue this sensitive and controversial. -- ( talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not move to "February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" but some are open for other option. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
( non-admin closure)
2014 Ukrainian revolution → February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych – In international media the events desscribed in this Wikipedia article are by now (16 June 2014) never described as "a revolution", hence it is not commonly called "a revolution". BBC News in practicly all its articles about Ukraine (these days) describes the events as "February's ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" — --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2014 Ukrainian revolution → Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych – In international media the events described in this Wikipedia article are by now (July 2014) not so much described with the term "revolution", hence it is not commonly called "a revolution". BBC News in practically all its articles about Ukraine (these days) describes the events as " overthrow". In all English media reports I read (a.o. Washington Post) about the events that deal with this article I never saw the word "revolution" (OK I did not read all English media reports...). "Overthrow" is also used in Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Should be Coup d'etat instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV, The term "Ukrainian revolution" is currently used only by the English Wikipedia, while most other Wikis commonly use the term "Euromaidan".
I emphasized that the term "revolution" is a often accepted opinion, but not necessarily a fact GeorgeDorgan ( talk) 05:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a revolution. Even eng wiki says that revolution is:
"1.Complete change from one constitution to another
2.Modification of an existing constitution".
In Ukraine, they didn't change anything about constitution, they changed their president. Nothing more.
nope, that was not enough to call revolution. Every month someone changes something. Но ты же ведь и по-русски понимаешь, не так ли? ;) Революция - это изменение конституционного строя, а не пара поправок. — Preceding unsigned 2014 (UTC)
Тебе английским по белому написано, что такое революция. Несколько поправок в конституцию - это не революция. Если бы перешли к процессу федерализации страны - это можно было бы назвать революцией. Если бы решили упразднить должность президента как таковую - это была бы революция. Если бы объявили абсолютную монархию - это тоже была бы революция. А поправки... Они каждые два месяца вносятся. Т.е. революция во всех странах мира идёт непрерывно с момента утверждения их конституции. Ну с тобой спорить бесполезно, ты это статью "держишь", судя по частоте мелькания твоего ника в этом обсуждении, а у меня нет столько свободного времени, чтобы мешать тебе форсить дорогую твоему сердцу "революцию".
Several insignificant amendments is not enough to call this coup d'état revolution. Everyone undestands that =) So you may think anything you want, but nothing changed in our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.60.6 ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Svidomits make flatout false statements just like their illigal goverment. Coup it is and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.88.84 ( talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The term revolution is always problematic as it implies approval.. While the word "coup" would signify disaproval and would be a bit missleading as a coup usually makes people think about military coups where the military takes control. A better word would be "regime change" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.32.34.124 (
talk)
23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The role of ultranationalist groups (Svoboda, Right Sector) in Revolution in minified and blurred over. No facts about this, while these things did take place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY
The position of some major politicains who are in opposition to the current European officials, should also be presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXoit9P7kc8
By the way, for instance, in the article "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" the role of pro-russian so-called "ultranstionalist" is boosted and stated in the first sentence: "Since the end of February 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian, ultranationalist,[41][42][43] and anti-government groups have taken place in major cities across the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine".
93.187.186.90 ( talk) 13:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems an odd choice of words for the article title. Surely Ukrainian Coup d'état would be a more accurate description of the events?-- 78.145.141.68 ( talk) 21:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This was not coup, under any legitimate definition of that term. It is doubtful that it was a revolution either. Mass demonstrations, followed by the president leaving the country, followed by the appointment of an acting president according to the constitution. That is neither a violent overthrow of authority nor an illegal change of power. Ironic that Wikipedia should be minded to call this a revolution, yet baulks at calling the Russian invasion of Crimea an invasion. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Would the name Ukrainian Coup not be a more accurate name for this article?-- 64.134.224.138 ( talk) 01:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I know it has been discussed at length whether or not to re-name this page as Ukrainian Coup an there has been no consensus. However due to the fact that a google search for Ukrainian Coup delivers over 4 Million results this is just too great a number to be ignored and thus not at least having a mention in the first line is at least POV and at worst deliberately mis-leading the reader.
Therefore I am going to be bold update the first line to include both the names Ukrainian Revolution and Ukrainian Coup. Discussion welcome. -- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss. First, because it already has been discussed to death and the answer was a big NO. Second because it's an obvious attempt at POV pushing based on wacky sources and Kremlin propaganda. So stop wasting people's time. Even if Google search gave you bazillion hits for the phrase, if these are not reliable sources, we don't give a fig. The term used in reliable sources is revolution.
Also, since you appear to be familiar with Wikipedia enough to be leaving template warnings on user's talk page, I gotta ask, you got another account here? A previous one perhaps? Volunteer Marek 19:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly I used the term Team Ukraine because i'd already read through the archives above and that term had been previously used to describe the vocal and petulant Ukrainians peddling their own POV agenda. Calling a Coup a Revolution instead is incredibly politically charged and misleading. However that is not the issue here. The issue is that across global published media the terms Revolution and Coup are both used to describe the events in Ukraine in 2014 and therefore this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. -- 71.110.129.100 ( talk) 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not impute a sincere intention on the part of Y. if the WP:RS consensus does not support it. He did what he did, the majority of Uk. citizens do NOT agree with the Russia Today interpretations which are not WP:NPOV. Thank you in advance. Wikidgood ( talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the name of this article is strange. No-one calls this the Ukrainian Revolution. Most people refer to it as either the Ukrainian Coup or the Ukrainian Coup d'état - certainly that is the case in the UK where I am. I've never heard anyone call it a revolution - only a coup. Perhaps the article title should be changed to reflect its more common name? -- 85.255.234.84 ( talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The title and entire contents are false here. It is well documented that this was not a revolution but rather a coup organised by NATO and the USK military industrial complex. That's why the current Kiev regime is being resisted by people in the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.75.172 ( talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The claim that the events can be described as revolution is a biased (also any further claims deriving from the assumption this must be true). The other POV is that this is about an externally backed coup. So the terms revolution and coup are not neutral until there is historical consensus about this. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.181.135 ( talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
BBC, one of the most reliable sources going are calling it a coup [1]. User:Johnny B 22:10, 25 February2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.68.22 ( talk)
I don't think this page can be classified as neutral as it is.
There is no special section for foreign leaders who spoke on the Maidan. Yet many people see the presence of people like Ashton on the Maidan where she gave a speech in support of the protests as a severe violation of the principle of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries. In this context it is also strange that the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and ambassador Pyatt about who should rule Ukraine isn't mentioned. In my opinion this should be in a paragraph 2.2: Western involvement.
I recommend including something from the following NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html This gives background to the Russian advice to Yanukovich on how to deal with the protests - that was largely ignored - and paints it as sound from the tactical point of view. 83.86.53.85 ( talk) 11:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This is just in and reported on several outlets. I think it should definitely be included in this article since this shows that the so-called "revolution" wasn't simply a revolution but was a calculated ouster funded/supported by nations including the US (for geopolitical reasons).
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150201/1017625288.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS-Fighter ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere else. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand the former Prime Minister of Ukraine is planning to form government in exile [2] If correct, this should be added. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just taking a look at this article, I am not particularly comfortable with its tone and content.
Starting with its unquestioning characterisation of the events starting in 2014 as a "revolution" (in line, mind with the so-called "colour revolutions") and its subsequent coverage, the article fails to convey a balanced point of view and to sufficiently describe and contrast the various positions as regards the situation. In fact, it reads a bit like a run-of-the-mill best-seller: the impossibly bad Bad Guys, the Good Guys (with minor defects, to make them more relatable to the audience), ... we're only lacking some romance! :-)
Joking aside, for example the third paragraph in the introduction mentions Russia 'calling the revolution a "coup d'état"'. Considering that, according to the article's very own (unreferenced) "fact box" one of the goals of the "revolution" was the "ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych", it would seem that "2014 Ukrainian Coup d'État" would be at least as equally fitting a name for this article. Yet, there is no qualification of the term "revolution" that has been chosen.
Equally, the rest of the article has a pronounced Western bias. This is in part expected given that a large part of the (utterly non-academic, but then again this is Wikipedia) sources are in English and therefore written by or directed to a Western audience, as opposed to a local, regional, or non-Western audience. However, of those Ukrainian and (only one?) Russian-language citations there are, the majority of references used come from sources such as Ukrayinska Pravda ("Ukrainian Truth") and the Kiev Post, both of which are eminently pro-Western (this is not a criticism of those sources per se).
I do not believe or suggest that there is a deliberate attempt at manipulating Wikipedia by presenting a specific point of view, but merely that the editorship's work has been a bit lacking in this article by using in an uncritical manner those sources that are the easiest for a Western, English-speaking editor to find and interpret.
I suggest that this and related articles (e.g., Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis is downright embarrassing) be reviewed and contrasted for neutrality, and all news sources (where they must be used at all) be treated critically—but with especial care taken when dealing with those coming from the same cultural background as the editor, as the bias in those is the most difficult to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.179 ( talk) 23:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)