Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12014/May

Notice of RfC at Right Sector

RfC at Right Sector:

“Should the article say in the lead that the group (or that some of its subgroups’ members) are neofascist or neo-Nazi, without citing a minimum of 3 top-quality sources?” --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We may need to disambig a certain page instead of redirecting it

There is growing talk that the current situation in the Ukraine is "essentially a civil war". See http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/dozens-killed-fiery-ukraine-street-fight-article-1.1778239, http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_05_05/Civil-war-provoked-by-Kiev-authorities-raging-in-Ukraine-Lugansk-Region-Council-1490/ 68.37.254.48 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge and reorganize material into Euromaiden article and perhaps an article on the Ouster of Victor Yanukovych

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.

---

This article seems to be a duplicate of the Euromaidan article and does not provide much information that could not be covered in that article. Secondly, this article's title is controversial given the unrest in Ukraine, and other issues. For many ethnic Ukrainians, they consider the change in government in their interests as a revolution, while for many ethnic Russians living in Ukraine they consider the change in government against their interests as a coup d'etat, and as such there has been unrest by the ethnic Russian population. Neutrality needs to be upheld, and I believe that the Euromaidan article can address much of the material there.

I suggest that a second article could possibly be created that is titled: Ouster of Victor Yanukovych, that would focus on the process that saw him rejected by the Ukrainian parliament and subsequently fleeing Ukraine to Russia.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support merging material into Euromaidan article and a new article titled Ouster of Victor Yanukovych, per above reasons.—74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is not merely a duplicate of the main Euromaidan article but instead is a focus on the events that happened in February, much like the article on the 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots are to the events that happened during January. This is a broad topic and there is a lot to say, so it seems to me that just merging it into the main Euromaidan article is a political attempt by someone to hide the real events that happened during the revolution. As for neutrality, this article passes that with flying colors, having credible and reliable sources back up the name of the article and articulate that it was indeed a revolution. DDima 16:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. They're not duplicates. The Euromaidan protests started late last year, while the revolution and overthrow of Yanukovych and only applies to the events in February and March. Most media outlets are calling it a revolution, so the title is not controversial.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "most media outlets"? Western media outlets may be calling it as such but what about others? There is a substantial pro-Russian presence in Eastern Ukraine, do they view it as a revolution or a coup d'etat?--74.12.195.248 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per DDima and Rurik the Varangian. The articles focus on different periods of the Euromaidan, with the 2014 revolution article focusing mainly on the violent events that led to the impeachment/overthrow of Yanukovich and the formation of the interim government. The Euromaidan article focuses on the entire protests and provides substantially less detail about that stage. As for the naming, per WP policy we have to use the most commonly used title, and international media almost unanimously view this as a revolution. The coup d'etat appellation is only brought forward by Russia and Russian state media such as RT and VoR, which cannot be assumed to be neutral in this regard. We have to avoid WP:UNDUE. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It's a notable event that should definitely have an article of its own. Also, your proposals appear to be WP:OR. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• strong Support --Panam2014 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merger on grounds that the revolution article already greatly exceeds Wikipedia:Article size. Only after that article is well split, is there a need to consider other reasons for merger with one of the resulting smaller articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is not a duplicate. Rather, it covers notable events in depth that are only given a generalized overview in the Euromaidan article.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the above votes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Seeing how this was not a serious proposal and almost everyone opposes merging the two articles, I am removing the merge sign. § DDima 05:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This makes no sense to me. It appears we are proposing merging Euromaidan into Euromaidan. What am I missing? AIRcorn (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Request move of 'Sniper theory' section

I suggest this all be moved to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution article. It combines the shootings from the Hrushevskoho street riots, and the revolution murders. The section I'm referring to is here. The content needs a real look at, as it appears to be pushing the Russian POV that the snipers were really the opposition (lots of the sources are ITAR and RT). To provide a balanced section, it should have more detailed info and not omit important stuff. The Paet call is especially prone to propagandizing. --Львівське (говорити) 03:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

please see my comment to the "Original Research" topic you also opened. Sage (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the sniper section and was wondering if this quote is needed: "[t]he theory we are looking at is the killing was by unidentified persons. This is an official theory, and the unidentified persons could be various people, a whole host of them… It could have been motivated by disruptive behavior, or with the aim of provocation." It seems he's saying a lot of nothing "we dont know who did it, it could have been anyone for a number of reasons, who knows" With no evidence or leads, isn't this just clutter? --Львівське (говорити) 03:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Those snipers were western mercenaries, obviously, they even had nato rifles. Львивске..нашли , кого слушать — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.210.32 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

no fantasy/conspiracy talk please --Львівське (говорити) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is neither a prove that the snipers were Russian-trained pro-government forces nor that they were Western mercenaries. Please keep Wikipedia neutral. I will keep an eye on this page and on [Ukrainian_ revolution]. Still I support an integration of whole Euromaidan into Ukrainian_ revolution Cheers from SwitzerlandGeorgeDorgan (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Snipers deployed during the Ukrainian revolution]

This page is becoming more and more biaised, in particular in the section on the snipers. It violates in particular:

NPOV: While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

--> Volunteer Marek seems to delete changes that do not correspond to his wishes.

I personally added already twice the following:

On April 10, the German television reported that some of the pro-Yanukovytch snipers were not allowed to shoot but were themselves surprised by shots coming from unknown snipers.

The first time, Marek removed it without comment,and the second time with the comment that the report by German television violates WP:UNDUE

NPOV: The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

--> The first conversation between Praet and "Olga" that describe snipers from both sides is later voided in the text.

WP:UNDUE: Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others

--> Concerning the snipers, there has not been clear evidence or court convictions. Therefore a distinction as for WP:UNDUE, is impossible.

WP:WEIGHT: The current status in the section as for (WP:WEIGHT) is: Weight/Number of lines that sustain the Ukrainian version: 26

Weight/Number of lines that justify the Russian version: 4, namely the first conversation of Praet and "Olga".

Still adding the 2 lines about the German television report the whole section remains clearly biased

GeorgeDorgan (talk)

This is WP:FRINGE conspiracy talk and speculation from a German show. It's irrelevant. Wiki isn't a collection of every talking point, and adding gossip is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. --Львівське (говорити) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the section represents only the Ukrainian point of view. Moreover you cannot simply remove the dispute. Where are the proves? .. that the Dailybeast article that claims Russians were behind Berkut and the snipers. This is also WP:FRINGE GeorgeDorgan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

based on real life --Львівське (говорити) 07:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You come from Western Ukraine - as your user name shows- and your interest is to keep the section biased. I come from Switzerland and have an interest to read an unbiased Wikipedia. The sentence is part of German Wikipedia already over a month and nobody has disputed it.

That you removed my NPOV text is the biggest violation of WP policies. GeorgeDorgan (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ascribe particular viewpoints or prejudices to users based on their ethnicity. That's a very quick way to find yourself at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do that and I know that you have an interest in doing that. I would prefer that you team up with somebody in Donezk or Lugansk and write a neutral article. GeorgeDorgan (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

To be constructive: I retreat my dispute if you reflect other opinions, not only the official Ukrainian POV. In the sniper case nothing at all has been proven, no court case, no verdict GeorgeDorgan (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Antimaidan and pro-government rallies]

The whole text of this section is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeDorgan (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a constructive comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:weight Again the text contains a single POV with one source behind. The aim of serious WP editing would be show different POVs. That the government rejected the claims that people were paid to participate in the anti-Maidan demonstrations is clearly missing here. GeorgeDorgan (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That is just not how NPOV works when the coverage in reliable sources doesn't really represent particular POVs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Comparison with the Orange Revolution]

The section does not contain a single word about the "alleged coup against an elected government". Instead it seems to emphasize the "revolution aspect". GeorgeDorgan (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Because that would be POV. You have it backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Weight Sorry there are two POVs, so you must show both POVs in biased, equally weighted way but not talking lengthy about one single POV and ignoring the other completely.GeorgeDorgan (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:WEIGHT requires that viewpoints get coverage in proportion to how they are treated in reliable sources. The "coup" viewpoint is that just of the Russian government. The "revolution" viewpoint is that of the international community and the vast majority of reliable sources. Hence, WP:WEIGHT (and WP:FRINGE) require that we cover the latter viewpoint. Just because there are people out there who think the Earth is flat, doesn't mean we give it "equal" weight to be unbiased. The opposite in fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it is correct that the believe that it was a revolution is mainstream opinion. This does not imply that different POVs must be completely suppressed. True that a mainstream POV may take 70% or 80% of the text but the counter POV must be mentioned and NOT each time DELETED AUTOMATICALLY BY YOU. Example for WP:UNDUE in Neutral_point_of_view is that a "tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Here we are speaking of POVs that are not tiny minorities but a significant number of people not only in Russia but around the world.

You are using the same means Putin uses, namely eliminate other opinions!

GeorgeDorgan (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Volunteer Marek for the NPOV. I retreat my dispute request for this section, when the "alleged coup against an democratically elected government" is represented by a POV that takes for example 30% of this section. I might be also in a separate section. GeorgeDorgan (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Escalation to violence]

The section continues to elaborate the revolution aspects, while focusing little on the title. GeorgeDorgan (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is some truth to this objection, but it's not a question of POV but rather of balance and having text which is appropriate for the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you yourself remove the parts that have nothing to do with the title, that again emphasize the revolution aspects GeorgeDorgan (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Spurious tags

Re: [1]

Removal of spurious "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" POV tags DOES NOT violate Wikipedia policies. Indeed, the template documentation, at Template:POV specifically states:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

No justification has been provided, except "I think this section is biased", or "This section doesn't agree with my POV". These are both instances of confusing WP:IDONTLIKEIT with WP:NPOV. Hence, the tags are going to get removed, pending actual articulation of the problems. I will however put in an article-level tag.

Note that the documentation also says:

This template should not be used as a badge of shame (though personally I don't really agree with this one)

and

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

Which is another reason to remove the spurious tags.

Also, there's some text being added which violates WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)