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]
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.
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]
PoR large rally apparently coming
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]
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)
