News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 19, 2014, and February 23, 2014.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Ukraine C‑class High‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class High‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This “revolution” involved the democratically elected president being literally run out of the country. To call it a civilian coup or even an uprising would be far more objective and accurate.

The term “revolution of dignity” literally sounds like it came from the intelligence agencies of a nation that felt its interests were furthered by the event. It clearly seeks to lionize one side of the conflict by using a non-academic term like “dignity”. 67.245.186.65 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term "freedom fries" had nothing to do with freedom, and it seems that there is no dignity in this revolution (in contrast to the Orange revolution when nobody was killed). Just let's refresh the newspeak dictionary. Gunnar (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to let everyone know that this user, among several others pushing similar narratives on both this article and other Ukraine-related subjects, has (1) only edited Ukraine-related articles, (2) has a static IPv4 address, and (3) has an IP address that is on at least one spam/botnet blacklist. All of these should make you suspicious.

Furthermore, the impeachment of an official through normal and constitutional parliamentary procedures is not--and will never be, no matter what Russia Today says--a coup. 2604:2800:0:8B9E:9161:5358:CD49:E918 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP here, let’s address the lies of the previous editor:

-I do not have any other edits of any other article, I barely know how to do this mechanically

-I only posted my opinion on this article because “revolution of dignity” is both an inaccurate description and uses terminology that is not at all objective. Even if the user views this as a “revolution”, obviously a term like “2014 Ukrainian revolution” would be far far more objective then “revolution of dignity”.

-I don’t know anything about routers or ISP’s and have no idea what a “static ip” would indicate

-I’m assuming the comment about me being on a “spam blacklist” is a lie, and I’m obviously not a bot... and if they do have quick access to some sort of secret spam blacklist that would probably indicate that they are a government official and likely have a professional bias on this matter

-I never cited and would never cite a propaganda outlet like Russia Today. No idea where this comment comes from

-The BBC article you cited DOES NOT use the words “impeachment” or “constitutional”, your characterization is your own and not derived from that article. The article does however state:

“Mr Yanukovych appears on TV to denounce “coup””

“An arrest warrant is issued for Mr Yanukovych”

The article states that the parliament voted to remove yanukovych, but nothing about any impeachment proceedings or any crime he had committed. Further, the fact that a warrant was immediately issued for his arrest strongly indicates a coup, especially when no crimes or actual impeachment proceedings are referenced in this detailed article.

I think it’s “suspicious” that you would post such an angry rant in response to me merely stating my opinion. And your little background check only indicates that you seek to impugn my motives and discredit me rather then debate with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.186.65 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP again, just want to add one final point. The “impeachment in ukraine” page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine) states regarding this event specifically “The action did not follow the impeachment process as specified by the Constitution of Ukraine (which would have involved formally charging the president with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote – i.e. at least 338 votes in favor – by the Rada)” and “There were no articles of impeachment against Yanukovych.”

Both direct quotes from that article indicating that it was an unconstitutional overthrow, or coup, ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA ITSELF, as well as the BBC article the above editor cited. Why this page is not consistent with that page is likely due to disinformation spread by the likes of the editor above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.186.65 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One formal remark: Wikipedia is not allowed to cite Wikipedia. Always use external references. And by the way: excluding Russia Today is a type of an ad hominem argument. You need to check the content, not the sender of a message. Gunnar (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but I want you to try to understand that Wikipedia article titles are not based on conjecture or WP:OR about whether a process was constitutional or not. We follow the common name in reliable sources, which has been determined to be 'Revolution of Dignity'. Indeed, our article titles' policy specifically allows us to use WP:POVNAMEs (non-neutral names) if they are the common name. The granularity of the process by which Yanukovych was removed is already described in the article, and attested by RS. I have fixed some misleading uses of the word 'impeachment', as well. However, despite the fact that the process may not have followed the usual rules, RS refer to this revolution as such, and therefore, so too must Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, that makes sense. I still disagree with the terminology, but I completely understand why Wikipedia uses the exact characterizations of RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.186.65 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google's ngram viewer shows "Maidan revolution" is being more predominant term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made up your NGRAM wrong, presumably to prove a WP:POINT considering you included the non-starter and otherwise vague '2014 coup'. A properly put together NGRAM shows the present title clearly on top. RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"2014 coup" is quite widely used. But I was just chekcing, I am not pushing for it yet. I don't know why the "revolution of dignity" showed up with different counts in thte two searches. I will try to investigate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls it The Maidan protest movement (not a "revolution" apparently). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a separate article on the Euromaidan movement. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird that the ngram count for "revolution of dignity" started already before early 2014. Which revolutions were counted in the years before the Maidan massacre? Gunnar (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You assert in your comment that "Wikipedia article titles are not based on conjecture or WP:OR about whether a process was constitutional or not. We follow the common name in reliable sources, which has been determined to be 'Revolution of Dignity'."

That makes good sense, but is "Revolution of Dignity" *really* the "common name in reliable sources". I consider myself a reasonably good reader on current events, and mostly read major American news outlets like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and Politico and I don't recall *EVER* seeing this term before being redirected to it.

So, here is an (admittedly imperfect, but still of value) experiment, just using Google to see how many results the three possible terms get:

"Ukrainian Revolution" About 29,400,000 results

"Maiden Revolution" About 9,410,000 results

"Revolution of Dignity" About 282,000 results

So, of course you can find uses of your preferred term, but it's quite clear from the above (even given that some of the sources in each category that Google has indexed would not pass the Wikipedia "Reliable Sources" test) that the *common* name is not "Revolution of Dignity* -- it's uncommon. Two *orders of magnitude* less-used than "Ukrainian Revolution"

Thus, I strongly concur with the OP that this sounds like someone is pushing a propaganda move here, and we are using this (almost comically Soviet-era sounding) quite uncommon name for an event almost everyone calls by one of the two other names.

If you asked 100 diligent daily readers of top American news sources "what is the "Revolution of Dignity" I bet fewer than 10 would know. That's just a guess. Vs. all 100 would know what Ukrainian Revolution or Maiden Revolution would mean, I suspect.

ZeroXero (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Google ngrams result supports the title. Jr8825 • Talk 20:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow, give place; here is no longer stay. Fostercoxfoster (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree, but from a different angle, I'm no where near smart enough or informed enough to judge whether this was a glorious revolution for the people or a civilian coup. But I still feel like the name breaks the "use the most common name" rule, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this FAR more commonly called the Euromaiden Revolution or just the Ukranian revolution? It seems like it was only changed to the far less commonly known name when tensions were ramping up between Russia and Ukraine, which feels a lot less like the reasoning was 'this is the most common name' and more 'this revolution was objectively good slava ukraini!'. I think we should change it back to either 'Ukraine revolution', 'Ukranian revolution', 'Ukranian revolution of 2014' (the old name) or even 'Euromaiden revolution', all of which I feel are FAR more commonly used than the current term. Whether or not 'Revolution of Dignity' carries an implication that is inaccurate doesn't really feel like a fruitful discussion, since if it is a term that is used for the 2014 revolution then it should probably be mentioned entirely for "scholarly" purposes, and even if we all magically realised the 2014 revolution was actually the worst thing in history for everyone, it should still be mentioned, because it was a term used for it. My main point is that 'Ukrainian Revolution' is probably the most neutral and (more importantly) widely used term. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would improve the article and make it appeal to more readers by changing the title and not using the term 'revolution of dignity'. It makes the article appear biased and therefore not worth taking seriously. This was implied in my previous comment which was removed. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start just another move discussion, but please take a look at all the reasons given in the previous discussions (all linked on the top of this page), and the relevant guidelines, most prominently WP:COMMONNAME. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one calls it this outside of Ukrainians. In the US if you said "Revolution of Dignity" vs "Euromaiden"/"euromaiden revolution" you'd get most people knowing about the latter. Should be titled "Ukrainian Revolution of 2014. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read all of the above. I do not think it necessary to do so to give useful feedback about improving the article. If my response is, similar to that of another user that supports their response. It is not necessary to state that the purpose of feedback is to improve the article, that is understood as it is the purpose of feedback. This is the first time anyone has ever removed a comment of mine from a talk page. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change it from “Revolution of Dignity” to “Ukrainian Revolution of 2014” or “2014 Ukrainian Revolution” because it appears more informative and much more formal. Also, unlike the “Orange Revolution”, this revolution didn’t have an official name. TankDude2000 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serhij Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, which is one of the most popular scholarly works on Ukrainian history, simply calls it "Revolution of Dignity" on pages 339, 341, 342, 352, 353, and in the index. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other “revolution” pages on wikipedia have the title of: (insert country) Revolution of (insert year). For example, the Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010. That revolution was also called “People’s April Revolution”, but the former was kept as title! TankDude2000 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"All" ? Did you really check all ? Including Orange Revolution ? Once again, the relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not reffering to color revolutions sir! TankDude2000 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title deserves a change as well, as it is not NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

89.122.39.11 (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)I would want to put the old photo on this page. It looks more defining![reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TankDude2000 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC) I want to change some pictures with other Euromaidan images. Also, I need to change the name from “Revolution of Dignity” to “Ukrainian Revolution”![reply]

 Not done As stated above, the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Regarding the title: There is already a long discussion above. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more references of ^[1][2] must be added in the paragraph of "Ukrainian mass medias reported the results of forensic examinations, according to which, the government police Berkut was implicated in the murders of maidan protesters since, according to these forensic examinations, matches were found between the bullets extracted from the bodies of maidan protesters and the weapons of the government police Berkut.[332][333][334][335][336][337][338] The experts explained why no match between the bullets and the weapons, which had been assigned to the Berkut special force, had been found as a result of the examination of the bullets held in January 2015, whereas the examination carried out in December of the same year had showed such a match.[339]", located in the end of the sections of "Casualties. Speculation on snipers" of the article. I ask everyone, who can edit the article, to add these two references ^[3][4] to this about mentioned paragraph. Prohoshka (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

161.8.211.107 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the entry revolution of dignity is replete with false statements. that it relies on secondary media sources the BBC for example which states that the government abandoned the EU agreement under pressure from Russia demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that this entry must be removed in its entirety.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See WP:RS. Trusted secondary sources like the BBC for example are often preferred Cannolis (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do not support Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine, and I am against what everything that Putin and his cronies stand for. However, since this event and the events following it are contentious, I propose a name for the English article of Wikipedia that I percieve to be non-partisan: 'Ukrainian Revolution'.

The reason is that the name 'Revolution of Dignity' is a name for the revolution widely used in Ukraine, but not internationally. Besides, the name 'Revolution of Dignity' not only does not indicate when or where it took place (it's a vague name that conveys emotions by the Ukrainians), but it also sounds slightly partisan (I swear I'm not trying to degrade the name because of pro-russian bias, I personally oppose Russia's invasion and War in Ukraine). Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that articles cannot take any stance in a conflict; I.e, to stay neutral. And even in a war where there's an obvious aggressor (in this case, Russia) and an obvious victim (the Ukrainian people), one can't get carried away with any biases, however small they may be.

As such, I propose that articles in English refer to the Ukrainian revolution as 'Ukrainian Revolution.' It's a clear, non-partisan name (in line with Wikipedia's guidelines) specifies when and where it took place, and even indirectly says that it was a popular uprising against their government (the government of Viktor Yanukovich at the time).

I'm open to questions and responses to my proposal. 80.42.174.53 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion about this, see above. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]