Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12015/February

New Section
per our discussion on my [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jbhunley#From_the_Euromaidan_Talk_page talk page] I have read through the article and have a pretty good idea of what the talk page history is like. The article is well sourced as articles on controversial subjects tend to be. Most sections that state facts cite a good source however I have not used my Russian in nearly 20 years so I can not get a good sense of the Russian language sources, even less so the Ukrainian ones. Essentially the first sections seem pretty good. The pro-Government perspective, which could use some elaboration, is mostly covered in Anti-Maidan. Where some new work might be needed is in updating the Impacts sections. We are a few months down the road from when much of that was written and time might lend perspective. Keep in mind that a lot of the follow on effects have been overtaken by and subsumed in the war. What are your ideas? JBH (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @JBH Thanks for moving the conversation to the talk page. Please look at the second and third paragraphs in the introductory section of the article. (The ones that begin with "The protests reached..." and "Despite the impeachment...") I'm having trouble understanding how that is not what's called in Wiki lingo "no original research." My understanding is that content is supposed to be sourced, not simply expounded upon by Wiki editors. Since those paragraphs have no citations, what is the source? Tikva2009 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * These paragraphs are what is known as the LEAD and are intended to summarize the main points of the article based upon information in the body of the article. Best practice is not to load up the Lead with citations because everything there is backed up by the sources in the main body. In effect the entire article is what backs up the lead. If you feel the substance of the article does not back up what is in those paragraphs then you need to address how the lead misrepresents what is in the article or state what specific assertion you want to challenge. Also how would you want to change it? WP:OR does not prevent editors from using their own words, in fact copyright requires that they do. What is disallowed is drawing conclusions beyond what the sources say or combining sources to draw conclusions not addressed by any of the sources. Do you think this has occurred there? Also just typing @JBH will not send me a notification you need to type   and sign your edit with   which will send me a notification as well as an email in case I have not logged on to Wikipedia.  I guess the question is specifically what do you object to in those paragraphs and how would you want to fix it? JBH (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley I read the LEAD style guide you referenced. Unlike your understanding, this document calls for the lead paragraphs being "carefully sourced as appropriate." It also calls for "a neutral point of view." The paragraphs in question meet neither criterion. Let me give you an example: Paragraph two includes the statement, "The next day, the parliament impeached Yanukovych..." and the third paragraph says, "Despite the impeachment of Yanukovych..." The Lead Section Guidelines also require that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So I tried to follow the "impeach" theme into the body of the article. I found two occurrences. In the first there is the phrase "allegedly impeached the president." A Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article is cited as a source. But if you read that article you will see that it presents reliable evidence that Yanukovych was not impeached. The second occurrence of this subject says, "...Yanukovych flees the country and gets impeached on 22 February 2014." It cites articles from BBC news, the Financial Times, and Agence France-Presse, none of which seem to use the word "impeach." If Yanukovych had been impeached, there would have been a constitutional transition of power in Kyiv. So that matter is not trivial. It is not just a matter of word choice. It is a matter of what really happened. The Ukrainian crisis is one of the most dangerous situations in the world today. For many people Wikipedia will be the source of first choice if they seek information about it. This article presently is permeated with misleading information. You asked me to cite what I think should be changed. I've tried to give you a starting point. Hope you will find it helpful. Tikva2009 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * OK, I understand what your objection is and agree that it has merit. I also agree with you that the events in the Ukraine in particular and the Russian periphery in general, constitute an incredibly dangerous situation  I have looked at the sources used to support "impeachment" and agree that they and the facts do not support the legal term. Based upon those sources and some others I found I think we can use "removed by a constitutional majority vote". This term is supported by ref [//www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8faf984a-9bda-11e3-afe3-00144feab7de.html 173]. and if you need more by:
 * "'The vote to 'remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine' was passed by 328 MPs.Such ballots, passed by what is called constitutional majority, are binding and enter into force with immediate effect, the BBC's Ukraine analyst Olexiy Solohubenko reports.' from [//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26304842 Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych]"
 * I also think that [//www.ponarseurasia.org/article/was-yanukovych%E2%80%99s-removal-constitutional Was Yanukovych’s Removal Constitutional?] gives a very good analyss of the situation although I have not explored the bona fides of the site to see if it passes WP:RS. This is also addressed in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#cite_note-RadioFreeEurope-92 88] Discussing the de jure requirements vs the de facto realities of Yanukovych's removal from office might make a good section for this article or possibly an interesting article Constitutional Crisis in Ukraine of its own now that enough time has passed for some good sources to be available. JBH (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley A "constitutional majority vote" does not seem to be applicable here. The RFE\RL article spells out what was required by the constitution that was in force for removing a president. There was a majority vote, but it did not measure up to the constitutional requirement. In that circumstance, the majority vote was not constitutional, and that makes the term "constitutional majority vote" nonsensical, regardless of what source claimed it. Perhaps it could be said that "a parliamentary majority voted to remove Yanukovych, but the vote failed to meet the constitutional requirements for removal," and then reference the RFE/RL article. I tried to view the www.ponarseurasia.org article that you mentioned. But my virus protection software won't allow me to connect. It reports, "This Connection is Untrusted." Tikva2009 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * Most of the sources I have seen report it as meeting the "constitutional majority" although I have seen a couple that say it did not reach the required numbers. Here is where WP:OR comes in, we must report what the sources say and give the greatest weight to what the majority of RS report. We can place a note-link that says the constitutionality is disputed but the fact is that Yanukovych abandoned his office, was removed, and the government of Ukraine has moved on without him. I could see using Yanukovych was removed by a super-majority vote of parlament but that would likely run afoul OR because the sources are calling it a "constitutional majority" and I have not seen the watered-down term "super-majority" used. It might also be good to make a section about the dispute in the article. The paper I linked above talks about the constitutional issues and one of the things it brings up is that a President simply abandoning his office is something that the constitution did not envision. So when presented with that situation the Rada had to make do to continue governing. This kind of sticky situation happens in revolutions.  About the weakest modification I could see is Yanukovych was removed from office by the Rada or more precisely After abandoning the capital Yanukovych was removed from office by the Rada both of those capture the essence of what happened and can be supported by sources, although others here may well object. The constitutionality of the vote, what constitution was in effect etc are all what is being fought over, right now the current government of Ukraine is recognized as legitimate so that is how we report it. If the pro-Yanukovych faction wins someday then we will report their way. We, of course, can and should document the issue but it will always be from the mainstream/status-quo viewpoint. JBH (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @jbhunley There is no such thing as a "constitutional majority" in the Ukrainian constitution that was in force. See: //en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_2010. I searched it and find no such term. (Read what it says about how a president can be legitimately removed.) It doesn't matter what a so-called reliable source reports on it, the "constitutional majority" simply is a non-existent construct for removing a democratically elected president. This is a very politicized issue. People are lying on all sides. Right now the Euromaidan article strongly favors one set of lies. Why are you inclined to support it? I suspect you are getting so caught up in the letter of the Wiki law that you are failing to see the reality. I still maintain that saying "a parliamentary majority voted to remove Yanukovych, but the vote failed to meet the constitutional requirements for removal," is most in keeping with the Wiki rules. The Maidanists claim he was removed from office democratically. The Russians claim he fled the country without relinquishing office, under threat of death by neo-Nazi thugs. Neither version will be helpful to the Wiki reader. The language I suggested would help readers to understand the truth. It is also well documented. Will you make the changes? This is an important issue, as we both agree, and I think that removing the politicized point of view is essential. Tikva2009 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * If you can find good sources to say that please cite them here. Like I said, I can easily support a linked footnote that says the constitutionality is questioned. You are quite correct that I am caught up in Wikipedia rules, that does not mean I do not see the reality of the situation. My background is in International Relations and pre-1991 I studied the USSR. Once I could see the focus was moving from Cold War I moved into other areas so, while by no means an expert, I have a pretty good idea how to handle a house of mirrors when I encounter one. However the WP:OR you so often mention means that no matter what my analysis says or however good it is, I can not put it into Wikipedia. I can use my background to inform my editorial judgement but I can not say "screw it I know what is right no matter what the sources say". I know that there is a propaganda war going on with anything touching on Russia, just like I know the US is using massive propaganda about the War on Terror but there is nothing that  I can do about it on Wikipedia except try to find Reliable Sources that talk about the issues . Sometimes the best way to deal with the media hall of mirrors is wait for a while for good academic papers and books to come out that cut through much of the propaganda.  All the lead really needs to say is that Yanukovych was removed from power, a footnote can be added to say the process used was flawed and there should be a discussion about the issue in the body of the article. You must remember that when you are talking about sovereign states what their sitting government says is legal is de facto and de jure legal. That is the very essence of sovereignty. Other nations may try to bring pressure, and how a nation relates to other nations may be covered in international law but their internal governmental processes are theirs to determine.  Their international relations are also theirs to determine unconstrained by anything other than the price they pay when other nations react either diplomatically, with sanctions or through war.   There is no neutral (as in fair to both sides) way of dealing with this issue. You are correct that we need another way to refer to Yanukovych's removal from office other than using the term "impeach" but we can not soft sell his removal and by implication question the legitimacy of the current government of Ukraine because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not do so. I agree it is important to get it right and you catch things I would overlook and may have different, valid, views on Wikipedia policies. That is what collaboration is about, it would be a crappy encyclopedia if everyone agreed all the time. We have our policies, rules and overarching principles so that when people disagree on content they can agree on why something is included or excluded regardless of their personal feelings on the subject.  I apologize for the lengthy text I just wanted to give you an idea of where I am coming from. JBH (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @jbhunley Yes, I believe I could find reliable sources to document the divergent political positions that I described. But I'm disinclined to spend the time to do that. I say that for two reasons. One, in my limited, recent experience with Wikipedia rules police, I've gotten the impression that the interpretation of the rules is quite fluid. If you want to know what I mean, please read back over all our discussion, going back to the pages the precede the exchange on this page. Second, what the two sides in question are saying is not the point. The truth is the point. The documentable truth. Right now the article is presenting only a fraction of it. Please look over again the RFE/RL article that I pointed to earlier. Are you saying that it is unreliable? If so, please make your case. When I get your answer, I'll comment further. Thanks for your willingness to persist in this debate. Tikva2009 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)tikva(2009)
 * I will read the article, right now the site says it is down for maintenance. Reliable or not it is only one article so you will need others. I, personally, am interested in your viewpoint so I hope you do chase up some good sources. As to Wikipedia "rules police" no one editor has more power here than any other. If you would like more input here is a list of the primary editors of this article with over 1000 edits on Wikipedia. I do not know what their viewpoints are I just used Wikichecker to see who the top editors were.  Alex Bakharev, Triggerhippie4,Volunteer Marek, Nickst, Yulia Romero, DDima, Lvivske, Lihaas, Aleksandr Grigoryev  Go to each of their talk pages and post this message There is new discussion at Euromaidan about how to address Yanukovych's removal from office. in a new section titled Request for input. Do not state your position on the issue and put exactly the same message on all of their talk pages. By doing this you will be able to draw more attention to the page without being guilty of WP:CANVASSING. This will give you more opinions than just mine. I have started a new section below for that discussion. JBH (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I read the source you mentioned, RFE/RL has been used here so it looks like it has been accepted as a RS on this subject. There is really not much in it that has not been covered by other sources. What do you want to use this to support? The constitution question seems moot, I have seen nothing that explains how one is better or worse for removing the President and from my cursory reading of both in translation I do not see anything that would. The Rada did not claim they were using impreacment  (see the big green quote in the section below.)  they used their power to call elections. This was a Legal Fiction used to get arround an the intractable situation the Ukraine was faced with.  Although, baring RS saying so, it would be OR to place that in the article.  It could be good to use in a section talking about the constitutioal crisis that came about because of the protests. JBH (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How to address Yanukovych's removal from office
The discussion started in "New Section" above. JBH (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC) - I made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euromaidan&diff=645994686&oldid=645270232 this] change to the lead as a way to get us started. Basically I changed "impeached" to "removed from office". I know it is not perfect but it gets rid of a legal term I think you will agree the RS do not support. JBH (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually RS do use the term "impeachment". Typical example: . So yes, RS do support it. Anything else is OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, however how do we represent all of the sources which avoided the use of the term "impeach" such as these, none of which describe what happened as an impeachment:
 * Christian Science Monitor [//www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0222/Ukraine-parliament-votes-to-oust-President-Viktor-Yanukovich parliament voted on Saturday to remove President Viktor Yanukovich from office]
 * Reuters [//in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/22/ukraine-crisis-parliament-idINDEEA1L04L20140222 Ukraine's parliament voted on Saturday to remove President Viktor Yanukovich]
 * Reuters [//www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/22/us-ukraine-idUSBREA1G0OU20140222 Ukraine's parliament voted to remove President Viktor Yanukovich]
 * BBC [//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26304842 Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych]
 * "The vote to "remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine" was passed by 328 MPs.Such ballots, passed by what is called constitutional majority, are binding and enter into force with immediate effect, the BBC's Ukraine analyst Olexiy Solohubenko reports."
 * I came to this article with the same view you are expressing however as I looked into the sources I have found more high quality sources avoiding the term entirely. While I do not support watering down the claim nearly as much as Tikva2009 wants to I think we have a situation where some/many sources used the term "impeachment" improperly. No source that reports on the actual vote uses the term and the Rada itself did not use the term as near as I can find. If I am mistaken in this and this issue has been previously discussed here or elsewhere would you please give me a link to it so I can read it? I am not wedded to changing the term but as near as I can tell the Rada used a different method to remove Yanukovich from office rather than formal impeachment proceedings. How do we proceed with this? JBH (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only accademic treatment of what happened I have been able to find is [//www.ponarseurasia.org/article/was-yanukovych%E2%80%99s-removal-constitutional this] which describes how the Rada removed him from office.
 * "'The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).'" While I admit it is OR for to say in the article that many news agencies used the term "impeachment" because of a misunderstanding it is not OR to consider that in conjunction with other sources to inform out editorial judgement. What do you base your objection to changing "impeachment" to "removed from office"? JBH (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley I object to your characterization of my commentary about this article as "watering down the claim." You are imputing upon me a motive that is not mine. Actually, I have been trying to correct inaccuracies. I presume that the "watering down" comment was just a slip of the tongue and that you will correct it. The change that you attempted to make about what to call the removal of Yanukovych is a step in the right direction. The Ukrainian constitution is available on Wikisource. Article 111 spells out all the criteria that must be met before impeachment can occur. I have never seen any reliable source report that the requirements for impeachment were ever met. That makes those reports that refer to impeachment verifiably false. It is true, as Volunteer Marek points out, that many so-called reliable sources have used the term. You have cited others that have avoided it. Perhaps those outlets that are persistently reporting an easy-to-verify falsehood should be officially considered as unreliable sources. Tikva2009 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * I apologize if you took offence at my idiom, none was intended, I struck the term above. It is simply shorthand for the continium of how to refer to the Presidents removal.There is the 'strong' claim using "impeachment" that carries the implication that his removal falls fully within the process secified in the Constitution; The "removed from office" which makes no implication as to the legitimacy of the removal; And the 'weak' (watered down) claim, which I understand is your view, that his removal was totally illigitimate, has no Constitutional basis and therefore implies that the current government of the Ukraine is illegal. In my opinion both extreme claims are equally wrong for us to make. Read the green text above it is as clear a statement of what occured as I can find. Do you have a source that says otherwise? JBH (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the word "impeached" has to appear somewhere in there, as that's what the Ukrainian Parliament did. Whether they followed all the rules and the letter of the law is, I guess, an open question, and there are sources which discuss it. In the lede the best thing to do would be to say something about "controversial impeachment". In the rest of the article we can use "removed from office" except in the sentence which explicitly discusses the impeachment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Volunteer Marek I'm having trouble making sense out of your position. If there is a constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, and that procedure is not followed, then the president has not been impeached. It is illogical to say that he was impeached, but just not according to the rules. For instance, if you want to get a license to drive, you must pass a written and road test as prescribed by law. You can't claim yourself to be licensed without passing those tests and explain that you're licensed but simply didn't follow "all the rules and the letter of the law." Did you read Article 111 of the constitution? If the procedure there is not followed, there is no impeachment. You've accused Jbhunley and me of weaseling. Could you explain why that is not what you are doing now? It's really quite ironclad: No written and road test, no drivers license. No compliance with the constitutionally mandated procedure for impeaching, no impeachment. You are dancing around the fact that he was not impeached. Thrown out, yes; impeached no. Tikva2009 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 *  If there is a constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, and that procedure is not followed, then the president has not been impeached. - Maybe. But we, as Wikipedia editors, do not make that call. If reliable sources say he was impeached, then we say he was impeached. If they say he wasn't, then we say he wasn't. If they say that he was impeached but there were problems with the procedure, then that's what we say. You don't get to evaluate whether he was impeached or not (even if you are a constitutional lawyer or something, which I seriously doubt).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree JBH (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley You are raising a separate issue of the legitimacy of the present government. I think there are arguments both for and against that. Indeed, as we speak, a deadly war is being fought over that issue. But I think we should for now stick strictly to the question of impeachment. Please see my explanation above to Marek. There is no "strong" claim for using "impeachment" if there is no evidence that it occurred. Newspapers that have misreported something are not reliable sources. If we can't agree that the word "impeachment" must go, let's take this to a higher authority. I think it's been discussed enough here. How can we take this to a higher authority? Tikva2009 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * Looks like I used a confusing idiom to try to clear up my earlier confusing idiom. I thought I had made it clear I was using 'strong' and 'weak' to describe the implications each term has for the legitimacy of the sitting Government of Ukraine. You can not decouple the legitimacy question from the method used to transfer power. That is why this is a contentious issue and I have a hard time believing you do not see that. You are welcome to take the issue to Dispute Resolution JBH (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley One last thing, regarding your quote from www.ponarseurasia.org: The writer is correct when she says "The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route." The rest of her comments are not at all about the topic of impeachment. She is talking about the procedure for calling a presidential election. We're not discussing that, we've been talking about the faulty claim of impeachment. The very woman that you quoted states that the "Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route." I've shown you by citing Article 111 of the constitution that the "impeachment route" involves steps that no one claims were followed. How can there be any reasonable disagreement about that? Marek claimed that the Ukrainian parliament claimed it impeached Yanukovych, but he did not support his claim. It seems to me that you are suspending reason and logic in order to preserve a very misleading version of what happened. Won't you stop? Tikva2009 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
 * Please read the entire article. It also describes how by abandoning his office Yanukovich was able to place the Rada in a constitutionally untenable position ie a Constitutional crisis. They resolved it using a Legal fiction, the calling of early elections, to remove him from office in the best way they could. In my opinion we have two equally impotent concepts to get across. The Rada did not follow the constitutional requirements for impeachment and Yanukovich was legally removed from office by the Rada the only question is how to fairly present these seemingly contradictory facts without using OR like I did above. do you agree with/have comments on my statement of the issue? Just to make sure we are all talking about the same issues.... JBH (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but this needs to come out of a reliable secondary source. Also, this is something that's best covered in detail in main text. In the lede we need to be succinct. Hence "controversial impeachment" there works best.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, unless there are objections I will make some edits either tonight or in the morning (or someone else can). I'm willing to either self revert on request of we can start another BRD cycle. I definitely agree that this deserves its own section in the article and would like to collaborate with all here to write it. JBH (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley I can't support calling Yanukovych's departure an impeachment. No matter how you slice it, there was no impeachment. I've gone over and over the facts of the matter. It was not a "controversial impeachment." There was no kind of impeachment. The Ukrainian government even admits there was no impeachment. Its ambassador to Washington said in a letter to our Congress that "on February 22, 2014 Viktor Yanukovych fled the capital and de facto removed himself from his constitutional authority." (http://usa.mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/19064-letter-of-ambassador-of-ukraine-to-the-usa-o-motsyk-to-the-us-congress) Ambassador Mostyk's assertion that Yanukovych "removed himself from his constitutional authority" is double talk and has no constitutional basis. I can prove that, but I think it's an unnecessary detail. But Mostyk's circumvention of the truth about the transition is not why I'm offering the quote. It is cited simply to indicate that the Kyiv government does not consider there to have been an impeachment. Therefore, why should you? The fact is that he was deposed by a revolutionary movement that took control by force. You are also jumping ahead to infer that an absence of impeachment means the Kyiv government is totally illegitimate. That's not the case. The international community has accepted the Kyiv government, despite how it came to power, as the successor to the fallen, democratically elected Yanukovych government. Most of Ukrainians have accepted the transition, too. (Notably those in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have not.) But the transition was neither democratic nor constitutional. That doesn't mean that it wasn't time for Yanukovych to go. But I don't think we should misrepresent the circumstances. For some reason the Kyiv government is trying to portray this as a constitutional transition. But if you read the constitution with an open mind, you'll see that it was not. So by removing the term impeachment, we're not delegitimizing the Kyiv government, we're just being honest. There are probably reliable sources that can be found that will support calling the transition a revolution. I'm not going to spend my time searching for them only to have you guys reject the citations for reasons that lack logic. But I'd encourage you to look. But we don't even have to use the term revolution if you object to it. Here's what I think would give readers an accurate picture: "A parliamentary majority voted to impeach Yanukovych, but the vote failed to meet the constitutional requirements for removal. Lawmakers then took the initiative to depose the unpopular Yanukovych extraconstitutionally. The resulting transition has been recognized by most world governments and by most Ukrainian citizens. The government of Russia and citizens of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are notable for rejecting the legitimacy of the transition." I won't hold out for using those exact words. But that's the basic message that represents the truth. And I think that reliable sources can be found to support such an explanation. Tikva2009 (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Tikva2009
 * Again, it's not your opinion that matters or gets to go into the article. It's what reliable sources say. See my comment above. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source, your proposal for the sentence "A parliamentary majority..." is original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek Just to be clear, the sentence you challenged was offered as a part of our efforts to find a consensus among ourselves. I did that much in the same way you introduced the term "controversial impeachment." In your last post you raised the need for supporting a statement with reliable sources. But I had already dealt with the reliable source issue in my post that you were responding to. In preparing my discussion sentence I tried to maintain my original point that Yanukovych was not impeached (earlier I provided a reliable source for that), and then added language to address Jbhunley's concern that we not sound like we are implying "that the current government of the Ukraine is illegal." Responding to your concern, I also included the word 'impeach." I was making an honest effort to move toward a consensus. At this point can the three of us agree to submit this for dispute resolution? Shall we start with the "Dispute resolution noticeboard"? Or is there a different way you'd both like to go forward? Tikva2009 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Tikva2009
 * Alright, understood, thank you for the effort. Still, we cannot say "the vote failed to meet the constitutional requirements for removal". At best, we could say "According to X (source), the vote failed to meet the constitutional requirements for removal." Whether this claim is true or not is actually subject to interpretation and as Wikipedia editors we leave that to secondary sources, which may disagree. We most certainly CANNOT write that "citizens of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are notable for rejecting the legitimacy of the transition" as that is blatant original research, and here, also POV to boot (it's very hard to say what the average person on the street in Sevastopol or Donetsk thought about this as it happened, particularly since they all ended up as pawns in a bigger game.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley I think that part of the issue we have been struggling with is that so-called reliable sources have been widely unreliable in reporting on the impeachment claims. If it can be shown that a so-called reliable source has repeatedly reported something that can be proved to be a factual inaccuracy, does Wikipedia have a provision for that source to be recognized as unreliable on that matter? Tikva2009 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Tikva2009
 * Yes, I agree that is a problem. I have seen some discussions at WP:RSN about that issue. As far as I remember the consensus usually came out to represent each using 'due weight'. Feel free to search the archives there or open up a thread there to discuss it. What you need to understand is that what we say in an article must reflect what is said about a topic in the reliable sources . If they get it wrong then in most situations we do to until the reporting catches up with reality. That is how Wikipedia works, here we follow we do not lead. I know it can be frustrating but we must all deal with it. JBH (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. Whether Yanuko was "impeached" or not, "constitutionally" or not is not a fact/not-fact kind of a dichotomy. There's room for interpretation and even experts and sources can and do disagree. I've seen cases where a usually reliable source got something wrong, it was discussed at length and it in the end people said "yeah, source got it wrong". But in all those case this was something explicitly factual, like "X happened on date Y, but source mistakenly said it was on date Z" or "source said X did something in place Y, but X was actually in place Z at the time" or "source said X equaled .2233 but it actually equals 2.233". Stuff like that. This case is different and you're not going to be able to convince editors that your opinion, or even the opinion of one particular source, trumps other reliable sources. I'm not saying this as a criticism, just telling you ahead of time of what would happen if that was to be tried.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. Whether an 'impeachment' occurred or not is a true/false factual issue. This is because, as far as I have seen, the Rada never made the claim they were impeaching Y. If they had made such a claim there would be room for the experts to agree/disagree but this is not the case. The press seems to have gone off and started using 'impeach' because they assume that is how you get rid of a president. Sloppy editing and sloppy word use but we have to deal with it. The constitutional question is whether the Rada could legally remove Y from office in the way they did since they chose not to impeach him for whatever reason. There are lots of issues there and they come up because the Rada did not use or even claim to use impeachment.  This argument has turned, among the press, partisans and pundits, into almost a straw man argument about 'constitutional impeachment'  when the argument the professionals and politicians  Why do all the English terms for bullshitters start with 'P'??  are having is whether or not the method actually used, calling early elections, was a constitutionally legitimate use of the enumerated powers of the Rada.  All of this is moot since it is my OR but I believe it to be a fair summary of what has occurred. [//www.ponarseurasia.org/article/was-yanukovych%E2%80%99s-removal-constitutional this article] which I linked earlier, gives a description of what happened written by a McGill professor who specialized in post-Soviet Eastern European judiciary/law and is well worth a careful read. Also, do you have a different understanding of the terms, processes or events? I want to make sure I am not missing anything. If I am my analysis could change. JBH (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , - Another source by the same author - [//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/05/why-domestic-developments-in-ukraine-still-matter-2/ Why domestic developments in Ukraine still matter] JBH (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

, Per our prior discussion I am going to change some of the other occurrences of 'impeach'. It occurs only five times on the page of which I believe two are covered by our discussion. I will change each in their own edit so it can be easily undone if there are objections. JBH (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley Glad to see your changes. I hope they will be sustained. Wouldn't it be worth adding to the RFE/RL citation the one you found earlier, the "Was Yanukovych’s Removal Constitutional?" article by Dr. Popova at https://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/was-yanukovych%E2%80%99s-removal-constitutional? She is very clear about the issue: "The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route." Two references are better than one. You might be more impervious to challenges from those who want to preserve the previous, misleading description. Tikva2009 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Tikva2009
 * I don't know what that source is, and whether it's reliable or not, but when I click your link my firewall blocks it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek That's originally Jbhunley's link. As you can see above, I had the same trouble pulling up the page. Finally, I searched for the article title "Was Yanukovych’s Removal Constitutional?" in google and then clicked on the option to view the cached version. Got it that way. Other than the firewall problem, which seems to be only certificate related, this seems to be a legitimate academic site located at George Washington University, just from a cursory view. Tikva2009 (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Tikva2009
 * I have the same problem when I try to access it from URLs on WP as well as some other outside links from here. The issue is how those sites have HTTPS set up when you access Wikipedia through HTTPS. If you use HTTP there should be no problem. Protocol  relative links default to how you access WP I think. JBH (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley I cut and pasted the https url into a browser window outside of Wikipedia altogether, and I still hit a firewall block. After removing the "s", however, I reached the site okay. So you correctly pinpointed the "s" problem, but it seems, at least in this case, to be independent of Wiki. Tikva2009 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Tikva2009

Proposal for new section on constitutional crisis
, - Would either/both of you like to work on adding a section going in depth about the constitutional crisis? I suggest starting with the Popova sources if you find them acceptable. I am, of course, open to others as well. JBH (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Day of Dignity
I removed this text "" It has occurred only once there is no "since" yet. It is UNDUE for the lead. I have no objection mentioning the singular event in the text though. JBH (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"a middle-class revolution"
According to historian Timothy D. Snyder Euromaidan was "a middle-class revolution" to move the country "from oligarchic pluralism to real pluralism." -- Ե րևանցի talk  03:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The West applauded Yeltsin's shelling of the Duma. That was post-Soviet Russia's weakest moment. So Snyder is simply rewriting history when he says that the shelling of the Duma was when Russia set out on its current path. The shelling of the Duma was the strongest expression of Russia's capitulation to the United States. After he became president, Putin made Russia take a 180 degree turn away from Yeltsin's policies, which included the suppression of the fledgeling Russian democracy with the shelling of the Duma.


 * So the Euromaidan was a move from "oligarchic pluralism", was it? Oligarchs are now in major official positions. That wasn't the case before Euromaidan, which Snyder calls a "middle-class revolution". Before then, the oligarchs worked behind the scenes; they didn't sit behind the desks in the president's and in governors' offices. Poroshenko is an oligarch, and hasn't even sold off his businesses, as he promised he would do if elected. The Kiev regime appointed Ukraine's third-wealthiest oligarch, Igor Kolomoysky, as the governor of Denpropetrovsk.


 * Rule by oligarchs: Kiev appoints billionaires to govern east


 * Herzen (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right but that's all original research. And it's a rare revolution (any?) where what the people want is what the people wind up getting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is remarkable that someone like you, who has made a lot of edits, apparently has no understanding of where the no original research norm applies and where it doesn't apply. No original research applies to articles. It does not apply to Talk pages. I can find reliable sources for every point I made, but I don't need to, since Talk discussions, as opposed to Wikipedia articles, don't need to be backed up by reliable sources, or any sources at all. – Herzen (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was working under the assumption that your comments were meant to improve the article. Apparently, you were just using Wikipedia talk pages to express personal opinions and speculations (right or wrong). If you can find the reliable sources please provide them. If you're interested in having a discussion which involves original research, you can always start a separate page in your userspace or sandbox and we can argue and speculate and do OR there to our hearts content. It's true that "no OR" applies only to articles and not talk pages, but talk pages are places for discussing improvements to articles, so why are you discussing it here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)