Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12015/October

Lead section

The introduction has five paragraphs, which is one paragraph beyond four paragraphs maximum, which MOS:LEAD encourages. Even when the topic is complex and disturbing, we must attract readers more as they either read only the introduction or become prompted by intro into reading the whole article further. In other words, no more than four paragraphs should be enough for all readers. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. How do you suggest it be cut without causing bias. There are five paragraphs each dealing with a specific topic:

1. Introductory paragraph
2. The protests and shootings
3. Yanukovych concessions
4. Yanukovych's breach of the agreement
5. The Impeachment of Yanukovych and follow on.

These paragraphs take the reader through the essential elements of what happened. Removing any one leaves the reader with an incomplete picture. More than one topic per paragraph is bad English and combining any of the elements into complex topics such as concessions/breach or breach/Impeachment can cause POV issues simply by how they are combined.

The MOS is a guide not a requirement and messing up the lede of a complex, controversial and most importantly stable article simply for the purpose of slavish compliance to a style guide strikes me as unwise in the extreme. Jbh^Talk 01:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the article, "Euromaiden was a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine," which started in November 2013 when protesters demanded European integration. It lasted until February 2014, totaling to three months. Complex situation in three months? Some statements are tagged as "citation needed". As for Yanukovych, how about merging two and a half into one and then do aftermath on another? If not, how about merging last three into just one? Our mission is to introduce readers to the topic in question, "Euromaiden", and to adequately educate them about the unrest and demonstration based on demands for European integration. We must avoid introducing too much about the topic itself, which is "Euromaiden". If anybody want to be introduced to Yanukovych, they should go to the Viktor Yanukovych article. No need to distract readers from knowing about Euromaiden, even though Yanukovych's actions resulted in unrest and demonstrations. George Ho (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the Yanukovych article, JB, I saw the intro exceeding needed paragraphs, so I merged them into just four paragraphs. George Ho (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I do understand what you are saying however the lede has been subject to some intense discussions, it took a couple weeks just to get agreement on how to describe Yanukovych's ouster. Those three paragraphs are, in part, so simple statements of fact can be made without drawing implications of causality or legitimacy.

The {{cn}} templates look to be leftover from the discussion about who open fire on whom and when and similar things where the Russian narrative and the Ukrainian narrative differ. The lede should be summarizing what is in the article and, in general, does not require citations. I will remove them and we can see what happens. That will also give some indication of how much drama attempting to rewrite it is likely to generate. Jbh^Talk 16:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

JBH, I did it: I eliminated statements that are not mentioned in body text and was able to reduce intro to just four paragraphs. (Man, am I gleeful. :D) There may be more unsourced statements in lede, but I must look thoroughly. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Looks good, well done. On first read through I have no major objections. I do ask you consider whether some mention of the Constitution switching may be needed, the change away from the 2004 Constitution and the desire to return to it was a huge driver of events both on the street and in the Parliament. I do see how that may open the door to requiring too much detail for the size you are shooting for though. Maybe the immediacy of the events has finally worn off and the various 'sides' will not try to rewrite everything. Jbh^Talk 11:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think about removing this from the intro: "Protesters gained control of the presidential administration and Yanukovych's private estate." Cited or not, I'm uncertain about its ability to introduce readers well, new and veteran alike. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 16:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "p[P]residential a[A]dministration" is actually be the presidential offices based on " they intended to go for storm of Presidential Administration and Verkhovna Rada" from later in the article. The US equivalent would be 'the protesters gained control of the White House and...' A citation for it is "Protesters seize Ukraine president's office, take control of Kiev". CBS/AP. 2014-02-22.. Jbh^Talk 18:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

I would like to thank all contributors to this article for exposing what Wikipedia really is. Everyone who actually witnessed this government overthrow and its consequences will lose any trust they had in Wikipedia as soon as they will read this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.186.123 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)