Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12023/February

Repeat deletion of Nuland quotation

@Rsk6400 has twice deleted the well-cited sentence, "Following the success of the uprising, Nuland stated that the United States had "invested" $5 billion to bring about a "secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." I placed it following the Poroshenko block quote that references Nuland.

Rsk6400 acknowledges that the sentence is sourced but says it is not relevant here. He has deleted rather than respond to my suggestion to move it in the article to where he thinks it is better placed. I think it sensible where I put it, but I am not insistent on its location in the article and would be happy to consider an alternative. Rsk6400 has deleted it a second time rather than suggest alternative placement.

Rsk6400, your objection is not self-evident to me. Do you want to elaborate or suggest another location?

Also, are there other views among editors? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32, can you elaborate on your objection? Source (peer-reviewed academic text) takes a stronger position, and maybe the relevance is more obvious if we cite more details but with attribution to the academic: "Victoria Nuland boasted after the coup in 2013 that the US 'invested' $5 billion to bring about a 'secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine,' by which she meant a pro-American government, the security and prosperity being yet to be delivered."

I hope I did not obscure the meaning by attempting to make the edit non-controversial. I suppose the relevance is clearer if we track the source more closely.

Alternatively, do you take issue with putting the original sentence I proposed as-is in "Reactions" or "Legacy"? Nuland was speaking to congress (see link) about the US support for Maidan protestors. That's a perfectly valid reason to put it under "Reactions." I wouldn't mind that either. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So, my thing is, that the after the fact economic support by the U.S. isn't an initial cause (the section you put it in) of the protests. I wouldn't really object so much if it were put into the economic impact section further down. Also, I wouldn't put "scare quotes" around words like "invested". The economic impact section certainly discusses similar issues, and it would be relevant there. I don't know what any one else thinks, so don't act on my statement alone. We should hear other voices as well. --Jayron32 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - those aren't intended to be scare quotes, that's just as it was quoted by the cited academic source. I don't insist on putting invest in quotes. Likewise, I'm not overly focused on section so I appreciate your comment on economic impact as another alternative and can wait for other voices.

To correct your first point, however, this was not after-the-fact funding. From the link I posted: "While the protests on the Maidan and across the country may have lost some of their numbers, they have lost none of their intensity. The embers that sparked the protests in late November are still burning and will not be easily extinguished. The tens of thousands of people who turned out again this past weekend in Kiev and other cities across Ukraine, now in the third month of these protests, testify to this. And, thanks to the support of this committee and the Congress, we have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals to ensure a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine." JArthur1984 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

But, it doesn't make sense that we would report the funding Congress gave in response to the Euromaiden protests in the section titled "Initial causes". When they say "...in the third month of these protests, testify to this. And, thanks to the support of this committee and the Congress, we have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals..." that means to me that, three months in, Congress decided to give $5 billion to assist Ukraine... That's not an initial cause, is it? --Jayron32 18:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s part of, and contemporaneous with, an ongoing event. As the info box recites, the period defined on this page is not just the November 2013 but continuing through February 2014. In other words, it predates some aspects and post dates others. So your observation is not inconsistent.

That said, I’d be fine with one of the alternatives I suggested or where you raised. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's all good. Like I said, I'd like to hear some other voices as well. Rsk6400 also seemed to have some objections, I'd like to hear from them as to a way forward there too. --Jayron32 19:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Although the source is academical it has two problems: Its focus is on US politics, not on Ukraine. Therefore it is likely to overestimate or overrepresent US influence on events in Ukraine. Also, the source is not neutral, since it has the (absolutely legitimate) intention of criticising US imperialism. If we want to use that source, we should mention its political tendency, and other sources should be presented to balance it. But I still doubt that we should use it at all because there are good secondary sources focussing on Ukraine, e.g. Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe, or Andreas Kappeler, Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine (in German; the English title would be A short history of Ukraine). Those books also mention US aid to Ukrainian opposition, but give it a context that is quite different from the "5 billion" quote, i.e. supporting the opposition against a "cleptocratic" (Kappeler) regime. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Haymarket Books does peer review?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: This text and the series its a part of are peer-reviewed; I don't know what the typical Haymarket Practice is for peer-review. Haymarket is re-publishing a series of academic texts (the series is called "Studies in Critical Social Sciences") previously published in the European market by a 300 year old academic press, Brill. Entirely possible that the peer review occurred when Brill published it in the first instance, the text's statement regarding peer review is not more specific. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now placed a streamlined version of the Nuland quote in the Economic Impact section. No quotes that might give the impression of scare quotes. This should address the other positions and questions we have discussed here on talk. But of course all should feel free to comment more as they view necessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the Nuland quote doesn't refer to economic investments, but to support given to oppositional groups. That's why IMHO it makes no sense in the section on the economic impact. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it fit better where I originally proposed it under "Causes." However, I have now put the "streamlined" version under "Reactions," which certainly works as that subsection can include both domestic and international reactions.

If you still think that's objectionable, perhaps you would find the German source you mentioned, and we'll add a pair of sentences in the Causes section, specifying as you had written some days ago, the perspectives from which each author writes JArthur1984 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't fit under "causes", as I already explained on 19 Jan. It isn't fit to be one of only two "reactions" (I don't think that section is very good now, but that's no reason to make it even worse). And I'd like to suggest you read WP:WAR. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your remedy there is to add the other reactions you believe appropriate. A "reactions" section with only one reaction will not get better unless more are added. And $5 billion from a major source of aid is certainly significant enough to include. We could even add a template to reflect that the subsection could be brought more up to date with additional reactions if you think it necessary, which would help address your separate concern that the section is not very good now.

I wish to avoid an edit war as well. If we are the only two disagreeing about placement in the reactions section, let us seek a WP:Third Opinion. And if there's more than one disagreeing voice on putting this sentence in Reactions, let's do mediation. I believe the single sentence I have added to "reactions" is obviously appropriate and it seems you are firm in your view as well. Let me know how you prefer to proceed. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether something is significant or not should not be decided by us WP editors, but by reliable secondary sources. That's why I'd like to delete the whole "reactions" section plus the two articles linked from it, but I don't feel I got the time and nerves to start the AfD discussion. I'm prepared to follow the procedures of any form of dispute resolution that you may choose in a constructive way, but before we start on that, I'd suggest you tell us about the context your author uses the Nuland quote in and what it is he wants to demonstrate by using it. The absence of context seems to be another problem of your quote. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources aspect is easily satisfied. As noted in more detail above, the source is a peer-reviewed academic text originally published by Brill for the European market and published in the United States by Haymarket. Our question is really where in the article is the appropriate place.

I believe the context of the source which I quote below demonstrates that "Causes" is the appropriate subsection, although you deleted it and another editor on talk agreed with your position. That editor suggested "Economic impact" from which you deleted it. I then put it in "Reactions," from which you also deleted it. Although I invite you to reconsider your position on "Causes," "Reactions" is clearly appropriate and we should have an easier time reaching an agreement that it belongs in "Reactions."

The author raises Nuland's statement in the context of funding of opposition groups contributing to destabilization of existing regimes.

"Destabilization occurs when people lose confidence in their government's ability to to run the country and the way is open to consider alternatives. Sanctions are a potent tool to bring about this situation though they are not, in themselves, sufficient to bring about satisfactory regime change. There must be acceptable alternatives waiting in the wings, either largely home-grown or facilitated and funded by external actors, which in the contemporary world usually means the United States. Victoria Nuland boasted after the coup in 2013 that the US had 'invested' $5 billion to bring about a 'secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine,' by which she meant a pro-American government, the security and prosperity being yet to be delivered (Nuland 2013)."

Note that in my efforts to compromise, I have distilled the assertion to its factual essence. Maybe that was a mistake, as its relevant is more patent if we include the stronger language from the source. But having reached this point in the dialogue my suggestion is simply to put "On 15 January 2014, United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland stated that the United States had invested $5 billion to bring about a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." under reactions. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I should have said, whether something is significant or not should be decided by reliable secondary sources focussing on the subject. From the context you gave I conclude that your author proposes a fringe theory (see WP:FRINGE on how to handle fringe theories). Everything I read about the Euromaidan / Revolution of Dignity is stating quite clearly that it was no "coup" and that it was caused by the shortcomings of the Yanukovych regime, not by the US. My readings on that subject include academical books by Serhii Plokhy (The Gates of Europe), Andreas Kappeler (Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine) and Kerstin S. Jobst (Geschichte der Ukraine). All three of them dedicate many pages to the Euromaidan and its causes. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is apparent our disagreement continues, and so I have initiated the third opinion request. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984@Rsk6400 I don't think there's currently enough reason to include the sentence. As it stands, the connection between the quote and "Reactions to Euromaidan" isn't clear enough; is it supposed to indicate that "U.S. diplomats had a positive reaction to Euromaidan" or something similar? That's the most I can get out of it, but I don't think this source (discussing only one diplomat's reaction) is enough to make it worth mentioning. If there are other sources on the stances of U.S. officials, then perhaps a sentence or two could be included that, with this quote as an additional citation. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the third opinion. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)