Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12023/November

Sniper Massacres on February 20th are missing
The article conspicuously excludes a series of 3rd party sniper massacres from February 20th, the exclusion of which misleads readers into thinking that all of the casualties from that day are due to Ukrainian police. The sources for this are strong, and include live video coverage at the time that the massacres were happening. This event is very significant in the progression of escalation of events leading up to the exchange of government in Ukraine. I will post links below.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-31435719

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-killings-probe-special-report-idUSKCN0HZ0UH20141010

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-26284100

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJhJ6hks0Jg

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/3/7/phone-leak-raises-ukraine-shooting-questions

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/5/52/Maidan_snipers.pdf HistBuff88 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If those events are really important, they should be sourced to historians or political scientists who wrote about the events some time later (and thus were able to distinguish between important and unimportant events). Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel it would be difficult to make a case for the lack of importance of the single bloodiest event in the Euromaidan, which severely escalated the situation and likely may have caused the deal to not go through and for Yanukovych to get ousted, and leading to everything that followed.
 * Also, the current wording in the article is misleading, and essentially implies that 100 or a majority of 100 people were killed by police snipers, which is untrue.
 * In addition to that, looking through Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources, I haven't seen anything about a required metric of historians talking about an event after an arbitrary time period.
 * On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history) it says "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Primary sources such as live video footage should fit the category of highest quality commercial works. HistBuff88 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos are self-published and don't qualify as reliable sources, see WP:RS. There are enough scholarly works available for Euromaidan, e.g. by Serhii Plokhy. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will happily omit the one YouTube video, as there will still be 5 good sources. In the absence of scholarly works that address the Massacres specifically, I have provided high quality commercial works, which does comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. HistBuff88 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, your proposed additions are not forbidden by our guidelines, but I still think that I have good reasons to object, see my comment of 15:50, 13 November. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, I believe you are taking the stance that the sniper massacres on February 20th are unimportant, even though the article already mentions sniper fire and the high death toll. I feel tempted to ask why you believe that the fact that 3rd party snipers were present is unimportant? To simply cite the fact that American or Ukrainian authors such as Serhii Plokhy haven't published a specific work in relation to this, in the scope of a conflict with an enormous level of potential bias on all sides, seems arbitrary at best. HistBuff88 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand me correctly. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, would you be able to elaborate on your stance? HistBuff88 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please let me know your thoughts. I'd like for us to make some progress on this talk. HistBuff88 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)