Talk:Revolution of Dignity

Appreciation to the Authors

I just wanted to thank you for the accurate page, despite the overwhelming propaganda. During the revolution I lived in Podil, at the bottom of the hill below the center, on Sagaydachnogo below where the stacks of tires were used to blocked the road, and near the Funicular. All I saw were good people, from every walk of life, desperate for a better life, seeking to end a corrupt government. Slava Ukrayini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:45D:DE32:F6BE:6643 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible improvements to the article

First of all, I think that the article is in a decent shape. But when I tried to make the article illegible for the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries (better known as the Wikipedia:On this day/Today section on Wikipedia main page) fellow Wikipedian howcheng pointed out some points for improvement for the article which I agree with. Unfortunately I lack time these days too give the article a good maintenance job, but feel free to do so. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Corruption in Ukraine

Corruption in Ukraine is prominently mentioned in the background section of the article. Is there any reason to mention corruption in this particular context? As can be seen in the article linked in the previous sentence, Ukraine is indeed profoundly corrupt. The leaders of the 2014 revolution promised less corruption, but it seems like Ukraine remains pretty corrupt despite this promise. Also, the statement "After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption" suggests that Ukraine wasn't corrupt before the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is dubious. Heptor (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Questionable competence

The article does not cite William Blum and Noam Chomsky, the foremost historians on the subject of the Washington Connection and coupe de etat against democratically elected leaders. This Wiki post focuses on commercial news media, which as indicated by Michael Parenti in "Inventing Reality," are not sources for informed knowledge but are disseminators of corporate interests and toothpaste. The article must critically examine a coupe de etat against a democratically elected leader and the United Nations Charter on such subject matter. The absence of any citation to Blum and Chomsky call into question the critical competence of this Wiki post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losduarte (talk • contribs)

We all agree that this article can be improved, although I must express my skepticism towards your assessment as to which degree the quality of this article hinges on presence or absence of citations by these two historians you mention. Do you have any specific citations in mind that you think would be relevant? Heptor (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research.

Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. Heptor (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What's funny is that it's quite obvious no Ukrainian sources were cited. There was no revolution, it was a coup - just ask ANY Ukrainian. Funny to see this entire site reduced to corporate propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Signing of the association agreement

In the second paragraph of the lead, the article states that "President Yanukovych [...] ultimately decided not to sign [the association agreement with the EU]". Somewhat randomly, in this interivew, Lavrov says that Yanokovich was merely postponing it ("just to postpone it, mind you, not to cancel it altogether!", as he put it). Is this a correct recollection of the events? Do we have sources for stating that he ultimately decided not to sign the agreement? Heptor (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Link to Paul Manafort?

I'm not a wikipedia talker, so I hope I'm doing this right.. Wanted to point out that publicly released text records between Paul Manafort's daughters state that this "revolution" was orchestrated by Paul Manafort and that he was paid for it. Here's the part in question, which can be found in any of the copies of the texts available online:

Sent: I have LOADS of evidence that a COURT OF LAW would accept.

Received: He prob feels he has s right

Received: And yet somehow my own mother, Disney.

Sent: Doesn't

Received: Yes well just bc he feels something doesn't make it so

Sent: He also felt he had a right to sexually assault mom

Sent: He has no moral or legal compass

Received 2015-03-31: You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly

Sent: What?!

Sent: No

Sent: Yup

Sent: Remember when there were all those deaths taking place? A while back. About a year ago

Sent: Revolts and what not

Sent: Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that

Received: To send those people out and get them slaughtered.

Received: As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine.

Sent: Don't fool yourself. That money we have is blood money

Sent: I don't advise raising it with him. He lies like a rug and gets realllll pissed off. But it's true. He thinks I don't remember

Thought I'd mention it, though I'm not 100% sure on the details (figured I'd leave that to professional fact-finders rather than try myself).

Thanks for all the work you folks do!