DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Euromaidan

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
icon
Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2025

[edit]

Please add the link to the Day of Dignity and Freedom (Ukraine) article for its mention in the Legacy section. Aced (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 17:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly analysis section

[edit]

Please, review for possible inclusion: D'Lisye (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars, most prominently Ivan Katchanovski, have argued that the Maidan massacre was a false‑flag operation carried out by elements within the opposition, citing trial evidence and forensic reports to challenge the official narrative. Others, such as William Risch, reject these claims as speculative and emphasize that unresolved investigations and forthcoming studies continue to frame the massacre within broader political and social unrest rather than a premeditated conspiracy.

Comparative Assessment of Ivan Katchanovski’s Maidan Massacre Thesis and William Risch’s Critiques
Aspect  Katchanovski's Claim   Risch's Critique 
Central Thesis Katchanovski: The massacre was a false-flag operation by Maidan opposition and far-right groups to justify regime change.[1] Risch: Frames such theories as speculative and lacking conclusive evidence, emphasizing unresolved investigations.[2]
Evidence Base K.: Based on hundreds of hours of trial video, 2,500+ court decisions, witness testimonies, and forensic reports.[3] R.: Notes murkiness of perpetrator identities and incomplete trials, but does not validate Katchanovski’s interpretation.[2]
Key Findings K.: Protesters and police were primarily killed by snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings (e.g., Hotel Ukraina).[3] R.: Acknowledges this theory’s circulation but stresses it remains unproven and contested.[2]
Broader Context K.: The massacre triggered regime change, war in Donbas, and Crimea annexation.[1] R.: Agrees on its pivotal role but situates it within broader unrest and geopolitical dynamics, not as a premeditated false-flag catalyst.[2]
Scholarly Reception K.: Findings replicated by Hahn (2018) and considered plausible by Sakwa, Cohen, Mandel, Lane.[4] R.: Implies replication may reflect ideological alignment rather than consensus. His forthcoming 2026 book critically engages with these debates.[5]
Media Engagement K.: His recent book was discussed on Glenn Diesen’s YouTube channel.[6] R.: His critiques circulate in academic and left-critical platforms (e.g., Спільне), distancing themselves from right-leaning media framings.[2]

Works Cited

[edit]
    • I. Katchanovski's Works on the Theme (2023-2024)
    • [1] Katchanovski, I. (2024). The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World. Palgrave Macmillan.
    • [2] Katchanovski, I. (2023). The ‘snipers' massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), 2269685.
    • [3] Katchanovski, I. (2023). The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations. Russian Politics, 8(2), 181–205.
    • [4] Katchanovski, I. (2024). The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War. Palgrave Macmillan.
    • II. Works Citing Katchanovski's Research
    • [5] Hahn, J. (2018). Ukraine: On the Road to Disintegration. University of Notre Dame Press.
    • [6] Sakwa, R. (2015). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. I.B. Tauris.
    • [7] Bandeira, F. (2019). The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine. Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, 27(1).
    • [8] Cohen, S. F. (2018). War with Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate. Hot Books.
    • [9] Mandel, R. (2016). The Crisis in Ukraine: Russia, Ukraine and the West. University Press of Kentucky.
    • [10] Lane, D. (2016). The Return of the Cold War: Ukraine, the West and Russia. Routledge.
    • [11] Risch, W. J. (2026, forthcoming). Ukraine’s Euromaidan: From Revolutionary Euphoria to the Madness of War. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350558748.

References

  1. ^ a b Katchanovski, Ivan (2024). The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World. Palgrave Macmillan.
  2. ^ a b c d e Risch, William (February 2024). "The Maidan Shooting: Conspiracy Theories and Unanswered Questions". Спільне (Commons).
  3. ^ a b Katchanovski, Ivan (2023). "The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations". Russian Politics. 8 (2): 181–205.
  4. ^ Hahn, Gordon (2018). Ukraine: On the Road to Disintegration. University of Notre Dame Press.
  5. ^ Risch, William Jay (2026). Ukraine’s Euromaidan: From Revolutionary Euphoria to the Madness of War. (Forthcoming). Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350558748.
  6. ^ Diesen, Glenn (March 18, 2025). "Ivan Katchanovski: The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine - The Mass Killing that Changed the World". YouTube. Glenn Diesen.

D'Lisye (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that would be due. He’s a political scientist, not a forensics or ballistics expert, and all actual experts in the field seem to suggest the opposite (for instance: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html). I don’t think we need to include fringe/debunked theories in this article, of which there are many by those same people (Sakwa, etc.), when the overwhelming consensus is the opposite. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, thank you for a bold promt answer. Theories are fringed, that's why they should be debanked: otherwise silence is suspicious. I woul suggest, as I saw in Russo-Ukrainian war first section, to add Bibliography subsection to Background with three-four sentences summarizing the debate. As the decade passed, research is gaining speed. Wiki voice shoul catch up! D'Lisye (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, even Historiography, not bibliography... D'Lisye (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we need to be silent on it, I just don’t see it as due for this article. I don’t see a problem with including some commentary on it in Maidan casualties, where there is already a section on the identity of the snipers. As mentioned, these same people bring up *many* fringe theories; for example, from those you listed, I know Sakwa and Cohen have both repeated the debunked claim that the US government was caught plotting Yanukovych’s successor (along with at least a dozen other scholars I have read). This too is perhaps due for inclusion somewhere, but probably not an article like this, otherwise half the article would become a list of debunked or baseless theories. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, would respectfully disagree. As this is the overarching umbrella article akin to Revolution of Dignity. And bypassing researchers indexed in JSTOR, SCOPUS, etc. (both above) even with fringe theories, makes them warriors, not outcasts. Just tangentially touch the theme: not an expert, I have found Katchanovski's, self-proclaiming most cited expert, academic book and even downloaded it: clear that he is in the loop starting 2016 with only one his research theme left. But his opponent's book is not in open access. So, you would do a favor to readers summarizing critique akin to the tabled above. D'Lisye (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is not to make them warriors or outcasts or to debunk them, it is to give readers an encyclopedic overview of Euromaidan. The overwhelming majority of reliable articles and books on Euromaidan do not mention these theories, because they are fringe. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, sorry for non-clear representation of my intention: not to mention fringe, but mainstream academic research. The article would be better with historiography subsection (fringers could mentioned, if any, in the footnote). As an outsider, I would not have expected research in this field at all: good if it could be briefly touched. Kind regards, D'Lisye (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katchanovski’s theory is fringe. The vast majority of sources on Euromaidan say that the deaths (or the vast majority of the deaths) were caused by the Berkut snipers. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, got it Shall I add Risch, William Jay (2026). Ukraine’s Euromaidan: From Revolutionary Euphoria to the Madness of War. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350558748. to the bibliography in the main space? D'Lisye (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know the guidelines for that, but I would not, since it isn’t out yet. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, then let me WP:BOLDly add. Thank you for guidance. D'Lisye (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D'Lisye Is there a reason you re-added it after Rsk6400 removed it? It is certainly not used in the article at present, as it isn’t even out yet. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, @Rsk6400, the reason is adding external links relevant to the subject matter of the article. Yes, Bibliography section is for materials used, but the External links is not, IMO. The only academic research for now is the book dated a decade ago. The forthcoming one, based on the author previous cited works, is not a fringe or debunked. Thank you for interest. Regards, D'Lisye (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry, I mistakenly thought it was re-added to the same section. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration, thank you. @Rsk6400, probably, you missed this reply from LordCollaboration. Please self-revert thus adding the information source appropriately. D'Lisye (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I still don’t think there’s enough value in an unpublished book (without much discussion in reliable sources) being added. If it is relevant later, it can be added then. I was just apologizing for implying you put it back in the same section when you did not. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link - the addition may be useful for Bloomsbury, but I don't see any usefulness for the average reader. Whether Risch is fringe or not remains to be seen from the reviews. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400, respectfully disagree: not up to you to decide what is usefull for the 'average reader'. How would you define 'average readership'? D'Lisye (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400, I checked WP:LINKSTOAVOID: link to the book doesn't fall into any of the categories. @Rsk6400, @LordCollaboration, would you express your opinion? D'Lisye (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me three times a day. The WP:ONUS is on you. So, please explain the usefulness for our readers of an announcement of a book that has been neither published nor reviewed so far by a professor who doesn't even have a WP article. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ONUS, it's about 'disputed content' addition. Thus, inferring from your opposition for inclusion, I shall address:
1) author credentials and 2) your insinuation about possible promotion of the publisher (as the book is forthcoming, no sustantative arguments due).
1. As you rightly mentioned below, Wikipedia article about the author doesn't correlate with the theory substance. The author is well indexed in JSTOR,SCOPUS. 2.I disclaim any association with the forthcoming book publisher. D'Lisye (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the whole discussion, I agree with LordCollaboration, for me his most important point is The overwhelming majority of reliable articles and books on Euromaidan do not mention these theories, because they are fringe. Sadly, it often happens that even famous scholars support fringe theories, cf. e.g. James Watson. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400, to his credit in the context, late James Watson (RIP) was not a SME. D'Lisye (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]