Irrelevant & missing sources[edit]

(possible BLP violation removed - The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pagesGizzyCatBella🍁 15:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC))... which is omitted from this article, with further claims unsourced, such as alleged "100 scholars" that only Katchanovski himself seems to have any knowledge of, or alleged citation by Andreas Umland, which is not just unsourced, but also unlikely or misleading, as mr. Umland is a man of stature and by extension unlikely to mention Katchanovski's utter gobshite works in ways other than negative.Reply[reply]

I added missing citations of Andreas Umland and others. The "100 scholars and experts" reference came from the following article, which quotes Katchanovski: "I am one of the most cited scholars specializing in the politics of Ukraine. My studies on the Maidan massacre have been cited (overwhelmingly favourably) by over 100 other scholars and experts, replicated in a book by the political scientist Gordon Hahn, and corroborated by BBC and German investigative TV reports, as well as Italian, Israeli and U.S. TV documentaries." https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/12/ivan-katchanovski-responds-to-ian-rons/ The article links to the Google Scholar page. I added both references. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:F439:E50A:AFC9:F5E5 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed this part entirely as it's unsustainable by sources given. Since when is wiki run in the vein of citing living persons themselves on claims of their success, which is by the way rather contradicted by the sources given themselves, as Google Scholar lists 60 citations, not neccessarily approving or even from different people, not 100? --2A00:1028:83B6:435A:91EE:631F:2FA:DC1E (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I revised my original text by referring to combined Google Scholar citations of the Katchanovski's original paper and subsequent publications and conference papers on this issue in some 100 other studies by scholars and experts, and I cited Google Scholar as the source. I also reverted the citation by the former American ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack F. Matlock. These are reliable sources. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:F439:E50A:AFC9:F5E5 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, that Katchanovski's work has been published in the Journal of Labor and Society, a nominally peer reviewed journal, does not mean it is peer reviewed, as the criminology analysis done by this political scientist is completely outside of its alleged scope of expertise of either politics, economy, or sociology. --2A00:1028:83B6:435A:AD15:A426:3178:488A (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New forensic reports

May I use Ukrainian sources in article in Ukrainian language? Many Ukrainian mass media reported the findings of the series of subsequent forensic examinations of the bullets removed from bodies of maidan protesters and these forensic examinations proves the involvement of government police Bercut in the killings of maidan protesters. Forensic examinations found matches between the bullets and weapons of government police. These forensic examinations are more sophisticated than initial ones Prohoshka (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not about the Katchanovski's study 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:C020:8066:4B6C:D11B (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are about the maidan massacre, so they are about the Katchanovski's study. They are about Katchanovski's study because Katchanovski claims that “initial ballistic examinations did not match bullets extracted from the bodies of killed and wounded protesters to the Berkut Kalashnikovs,” But there are other ballistic examinations that match bullets extracted from the bodies of killed and wounded protesters to the Berkut Kalashnikovs. A honest researcher must include all relevant information in his or her research. Katchanovski does not tell the full truth about the maidan massacre. He on purpose stonewalls, omits, ignores, and silences the disadvantageous information. Prohoshka (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edit is not directly relevant to the section concerning Katchanovski's study. Your comment violates the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, is contentious and original research. The Wikipedia policy states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:C020:8066:4B6C:D11B (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Unexplained reversals of testimonies of many wounded protesters concerning snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings and areas at the Maidan massacre trial compared to their testimonies previously provided to the investigation are consistent with cover-up. The same concerns unexplained reversals of forensic examinations of bullets and directions of wounds of protesters a few weeks before the investigation submitted the case to a court for the trial. The completely different findings of the few new ballistic examinations that protesters were killed by bullets from specific Berkut Kalashnikovs reversed findings of some 40 previous forensic ballistic examinations, including computer-based ones. Synchronized content analysis of the videos of the Berkut police and several such killed and wounded protesters along with locations and directions of wounds in forensic medical examination, testimonies of eyewitnesses among Maidan protesters, and on-site investigative experiments by government ballistic experts show that Maidan protesters were shot from Maidan-controlled buildings and could not have been physically shot from the Berkut positions in spite of the reports of matching bullets. (See Video Appendix H)." Katchanovski, Ivan (2021). "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigation". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4048494. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 247825013, pp. 47-48) . 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:C020:8066:4B6C:D11B (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comment does not violates the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy since this material is sourced and well sourced. This is not the contentious material about a living person, this is the material about the maidan massacre. This is not original research since I do not present my own opinion and conclusion. I present the facts from the Ukrainian mass media. This information about new forensic examinations that found matches between bullets and the weapons of Berkut must be included in the text. There are a lots of videos how Berkut members are shootings at the directions of the maidan protesters. These videos are evidences on shootings of maidan protesters by Berkut. What evidence Katchanovski has that the Bank Arkada and Museum Lane were under the control of maidan protesters? You can also include your information in the text of the article that, according the Katchanovski's evidences, maidan protesters could not have been physically shot from the Berkut positions, but do not delete my sentences. What exact minute of Video Appendix H contains this information that you gave in your comment?--Prohoshka (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your accusation that Katchanovski "on purpose stonewalls, omits, ignores, and silences the disadvantageous information" violates the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. The Wikipedia policy states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Your view and description of the evidence is original research. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:C020:8066:4B6C:D11B (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My accusation is only on the talk page. My text in the article is not an original research since I do not put my own opinion and conclusion in the article. I wrote the only facts from the Ukrainian mass media. Prohoshka (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This material should not be included here. It would be WP:SYNTH. It would be relevant on an article about the massacre, but not in this BLP. The sources don't mention Katchanovski, so we cannot use them to say he was wrong; that would constitute original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OF COURSE Ukrainian language work is relevant here. The problem is that the "snipers' massacre" section leaves an appearance that this is not a solved problem. It is. Berkrut did it. We have a big mess that leaves the impression that Katchanovski is pushing something that might be true. He isn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reception[edit]

Some data points:

On October 17, at a symposium on “Negotiating Borders” organized by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta, Ivan Katchanovski, an Ottawa-based scholar, presented a paper on “The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine.” He argued that leaders of the Maidan gained power as a result of a massacre organized by their own supporters, using as evidence video footage, TV and Internet broadcasting, and radio intercepts, as well as bullet holes, in trees and other places.

The paper was received rather coldly. Indeed Bohdan Harasymiw, one of the organizers of the conference, ignoring the usual politeness one might expect would be accorded to a guest speaker, derided the paper as having neither theory nor analysis, while another participant from the host institution, Taras Kuzio, dismissed Katchanovski personally as an anti-Ukrainian, noting that his opinions mirrored those of Vladimir Putin and Russian propaganda organs.

On the other hand, after the appearance of this paper on a Facebook site, Volodymyr Ishchenko, Deputy Director of the Society for Center Research (Kyiv) who offers analysis on Ukrainian politics from a leftist perspective, described it as an important study, commenting: “This is the most documented and coherent interpretation of Feb 20 events I’ve seen so far…. And, of course, if it was proven that the incumbent government came to power in [sic!] the result of a huge bloody provocation, it must have political consequences.”

A reading of this 29-page paper would therefore seem warranted. As preliminary comments, one notes some oddities about this paper. On three occasions the author refers to it as an “academic” study. It is not. It is an unpublished research paper that has not yet been peer reviewed. That is evident from its layout, which is a chaotic listing of facts, one after the other, often in a very confusing manner. An editor would have asked the author to highlight the important facts and say why they are significant....

Moreover, the paper appears politically driven, i.e. it sets out to prove that the change of regime in Kyiv last spring was illegitimate and that a democratically elected president (however corrupt) was forced out of power by a rightist-orchestrated coup. The conclusion is a veritable jumble of illogical reasoning and statements that do not seem warranted by the findings, which are themselves confusing.

It is additionally bizarre that Umland cites Ivan Katchanovski, a political technologist (rather than an academic) who loves conspiracy theories. Katchanovski’s favourite theory, which has no grounds, claims that Ukrainian nationalists (rather than Yanukovych’s goons) murdered EuroMaidan protestors. In citing Katchanovski, Umland places himself alongside pro-Putin Western scholars such as Richard Sakwa who, like Kremlin propaganda, cites Katchanovski’s bizarre conspiracy theories in his book Frontline Ukraine (pp.98-99 and p.320).

De Ploeg’s book cites on thirty occasions, some of them as very long quotations, Ivan Katchanovski’s conspiracy of “Ukrainian nationalists” undertaking the sniper killings. Sakwa also loves to cite Katchanowski. Katchanovski draws on a highly selective use of sources gleaned from all corners of the Internet and YouTube. There is little dispute among the broad mainstream of scholars, experts and policymakers that Yanukovych’s vigilante’s and Berkut riot police shot and killed the protestors.

In September 2015 in San Francisco, a Canadian academic Ivan Katchanovski presented his “study” on how the Maidan activists themselves shot the “Heavenly Hundred”. The study became a part of the judicial defense of Viktor Yanukovych... Interestingly, but earlier this researcher was never associated with criminology. He positioned himself as an economist, historian, and political scientist.

On February 20, 2014, snipers opened fire on a Euromaidan demonstration in Kyiv, Ukraine, killing more than 50 people. While security forces have widely been blamed for the killings, the investigation into those events has not been concluded. Putin told [Oliver] Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population. Stone himself had previously repeated this claim on social media [citing Katchanovksi]. However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim

The other “stars” listed on the IMDB page [of Oliver Stone's film, Revealing Ukraine] are Ivan Katchanovski, an academic promoting conspiracy theories claiming that the protesters shot dead on the Maidan in 2014 were the victims of a “false flag” operation, and Lee Stranahan, an American host on the Russian state-owned Radio Sputnik and former Breitbart journalist.

Naturally, Kremlin propagandists have pushed “false flag” narratives—endorsed by a few contrarian scholars such as the University of Ottawa political scientist Ivan Katchanovski—which claim that Yanukovych opponents either deliberately provoked the violence or even staged the sniper massacre in order to make events spin out of control and trigger regime change. The fact that no one has ever been convicted in the sniper killings has allowed these conspiracies to fester and made it very difficult to disprove them conclusively; but University of Alberta history professor David R Marples contributed a solid debunking in October 2014, and in 2018 a virtual-model reconstruction, based on extensive video footage, by the Center for Human Rights Science at Carnegie Mellon University concluded that the victims were indeed shot by Berkut members.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This can be included in the article, properly summarised. However, other parts should be added first. Mhorg (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Katchanovski's response to Kuzio, Marples and others in this article also needs to be summarized and included along with sources, which it cites, in the Wikipedia article for NPOV:
"Rons cites a 2014 article written by Taras Kuzio, but fails to mention that Kuzio was the head of a propaganda outlet linked to the far-right OUN. As David Marples notes (see p.29), Kuzio was “best known as Director of the CIA-financed Ukrainian Press Agency”. In 2012, Kuzio admitted to having received payments from the Fatherland Party for his media publications about Ukraine. More recently, Kuzio’s contract at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies was not renewed (see p.148), “partly as a result of his YouTube broadcasts, several of which targeted CIUS among his usual victims of scholars who in his view were hostile to Ukraine, “Putinophiles”, or fellow travellers”.
Rons also cites a 2014 article by David Marples. Although Marples is a respected historian, he has not researched the Maidan massacre himself. Since writing the 2014 article, he has changed his view, stating that the Massacre was carried out primarily by “snipers firing from the rooftops of nearby buildings” and that responsibility for it “remained unclear”. He has also cited my studies in his own academic work." 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:F439:E50A:AFC9:F5E5 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marples: "'Snaipery otrymaly vid vlady vkazivku rozstrilyuvaty ne lyshe protestuyuchykh, ale i militsioneriv'—Moskal ['Snipers received orders from the government to shoot not only the protesters, but the police'—Moskal]," Prestupnosty.net, March 11, 2014, https://news.pn/ua/politics/98896 (accessed August 19, 2014). Other sources disagree with this analysis and claim that the instigators of the massacre were members of the protest movement. See, for example, Ivan Katchanovski, "The 'Snipers' Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine," https://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine (accessed November 23, 2014)."[1]
Marples: "Other reports focused on the actions of the Berkut police against demonstrators as an ‘anti-terrorist' campaign (the same term later used by the Ukrainian government to describe the attack on separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk regions) – armed extremists were shooting police officers, aiming for the head or throat.3 This accusation finds support in the paper by Katchanovski (2015)."[2] 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:F42C:E068:E722:7E8F (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Marples quote rendered in Polish here is not Marples. It's Hennadiy Moskal. Very different person! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is verbatim quote from Marples and needs to be restored. He cited Katchanovski paper in a reliable source well after after publishing his own blog, which is outdated and not reliable source per W:RS. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:98F6:EEA5:3986:EBD2 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander Sich: "Unfortunately, apart from Marples, most responses have indeed been ad hominem attacks directed against Katchanovski... Moreover, a report by the International Advisory Panel, set up by the Council of Europe, presented evidence corroborating the conclusions of Katchanovski’s study—including accusations that the Ukrainian investigation of the “snipers’ massacre” on the Maidan was deliberately and systematically falsified and stonewalled at the highest level in Ukraine, in particular by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General office, as a part of the cover-up."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:C020:8066:4B6C:D11B (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV; Undue weight in the article and the talk page to criticism, mostly ad-hominem, of Katchanovski’s original paper presented in 2014. Points to consider:

I think the data provided, and the sources used, are useful and can be included in the article. Mhorg (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These have now been added. Lots of them look very non-noteworthy to me, and some of them are of very dubious scholarly standing if any. I mean, check out Guy Mettan or Kees van der Pijl. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restored citations to most of these sources and removed original research and misleading information. The cited articles state that David Lane is Cambridge professor, David Mandel is Canadian professor and Susan Watkins is New Left Review journal editor. Gordon Hahn has Wiki page. Jack Matlock is former Princeton professor and US ambassador to the Soviet Union. All are notable and experts. Polygraph does not criticize Katchanovski paper. It only mentioned his tweet about Georgian snipers in Israeli documentary. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:B57A:647A:E18D:7C1A (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Court House News: "On that day, Ukraine's police and secret police were accused of opening fire and killing about 50 protesters; but subsequent investigations [links to Katchanovski paper] have revealed that in fact shadowy far-right elements allegedly were behind the shootings. Ukraine has failed to properly prosecute the Maidan massacre and other atrocities committed during the uprising." [4]https://www.courthousenews.com/after-independence-ukraine-turned-into-a-sick-man-of-europe-as-democracy-faltered/ 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:B57A:647A:E18D:7C1A (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I restored purged citations from notable and reliable sources by experts and quoted their citations. It is common in academia to use footnote citations. Susan Watkins is the editor of a major political science journal, according to its Wiki page, and her article was published in this journal. Matlock agrees with findings of Katchanovski analysis and cities it as the only source concerning this massacre in his article in a publication of UNC-Chapel Hill. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:A0FF:42FE:A85D:F5BA (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With regard to this revert [5], IMHO including Susan Watkins is UNDUE because its just a passing reference by an academic who has no expertise on Russo-Ukrainian politics. She doesn't add anything to Katchanovski's credibility. However, I agree with IP 2607 that the citation by Jack F. Matlock Jr. is quite relevant and should be included. Jack F. Matlock Jr. is an expert in post-Soviet Union politics and has been US ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991. In this essay he says that

Demonstration leaders claimed that the government’s security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators. 1 See Ivan Katchanovski, “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations,” NYU Jordan Center News."

This citation either increases Katchanovski's credibility or detracts from Matlock's credibility, and in both cases it deserves to be included. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This source does not mention IK. A hyperlink is not weighty enough to make this noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? He explicitly mentions IK in the footnote and basically accepts his thesis, therefore he includes a footnote and a reference/link to his work. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I think this was confusing due to how the replies are threaded. By "This source" I meant the Courthouse News Service article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mandel: The source doesn't say he's a Canadian professor; it just gives his affiliation. As he is not himself notable enough for a Wikipedia article, requires some original research to find out who he is. This is the first hit and this is the second, which is why I used the term "Canadian teacher". The third hit is his LinkedIn page which says he's a professor. I don't object to that mild use of OR. Lane: similarly source gives affiliation not role. When I googled him, his Valdai Discussion Club affiliation was the first thing that came up. Watkins is the editor of NLR. She herself is not notable although the journal is major left-wing publication. She has no expertise on this subject and is not an academic scholar; this is an opinion piece and not a scholarly article. It cites no academic research. The mention of Katchanovski is tucked away in a footnote and very in passing. Totally undue to include. Hahn: does indeed have a WP article but I've flagged it for notability as doesn't seem to meet the criteria in current state. Hahn's mention of Katchanovski is more than in passing, although he is mostly citing Katchanovki's Facebook page, so this might be due, although Adoring Nanny's removal was for reliability reasons not dueness ones. We do have a secondary source for Hahn as well as Lane, Taras Kuzio, who says: Katchanowski (2016) is cited by all Putinversteher [Putin-understander] scholars (Sakwa (2015, 320; Hahn 2018, 199; Ploeg 2017, 38, 41; Pijl 2018, 80; Cohen 2019, 144, 179). Ploeg (2018, 174–176) cites Katchanowski (2016) on thirty occasions, some of them being very long quotations. David Lane (2018, 146) praises the ‘detailed research of Ivan Katchanowski’ (2016). Hahn (2018, 200-201) writes that there is ‘no evidence’ of police shootings, and that security forces ‘seemed to demonstrate some restraint,’ downplaying human rights abuses by the security forces and Party of Regions vigilantes. One particularly brutal kidnapping in the Euromaidan is described as a ‘faked’ abduction (Hahn 2018, 218).[6] Matlock is obviously notable but he merely briefly cites Katchanovski in a footnote so this is not at all due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC) PS I see Adoring Nanny argues that Hahn and van der Pijl should not be included because they are FRINGE. I agree that Kees van der Pijl is very, very fringe. I'm less familiar with Hahn but he may be too. But this is not necessarily a reason to exclude; the fact IK is praised by conspiracy theorists might be what makes him notable. We're not citing them for facts; we're attributing opinions to them. What might be problematic is calling them "scholars" though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Cohen: Although Kuzio is a secondary source for Cohen using Katchanovki, The Nation article we cite (quote pasted earlier in this talk section) is a passing mention in brackets - "(See, for example, the reports of the scholar Ivan Katchanovski.)" - which also seems undue to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is original research, synthesis, not NPOV and BLP violation. You purge reliable sources written by scholars, push your original research and synthesis, and give undue weight to a few outdated critical sources. Your removal of Susan Watkins means that Serhiy Kvit needs also to be removed because he is a literary critic and non-expert, and his cited source is an opinion piece. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:98F6:EEA5:3986:EBD2 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry can you explain why you think this is OP, SYNTH, etc. Opinion pieces shouldn’t be used for facts but if an opinion is noteworthy we can note it. I removed Watkins as she in’s non-notable and made a brief mention; it’s simply not noteworthy. You need to get consensus on restoring that. I believe Kvit is noteworthy because he’s notable and relevant; as a glance at his article would show, “literary critic” is a misleading summary of who he is here: he’s the founder of the main journalism school in Ukraine and a major public figure. Our job is not to list every hyperlink to our subject, or every hyperlink we like: it’s to weigh up what’s relevant and noteworthy and give it due weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The David Mandel who authored the article on "Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe" is actually Mark-David Mandel, this guy here [7]. He is professor at the Département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal, and his main research subjects are Marxism and post-Soviet politics. I don't know why he dropped the "Mark". I'm removing the "Canadian professor", which is a bit weird. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Gitz. I think we now finally have all of the affiliations in a consistent manner. (It’s my strong view we need a brief description for red linked names. I prefer to keep them red linked rather than remove brackets so that readers and editors can consider notability and address gaps in our encyclopaedia, but that’s not a consensus position on WP.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley I'm not sure I agree with your summary of Marples's criticism of Katchanovski here [8]. Apart from "political driven", which is substantive, all other criticisms concern extrinsic/purely academic features of the paper (e.g. "jumble of illogical reasoning and statements that do not seem warranted by the findings" refers to the bizare closure about "Weberian theories of instrumentally rational action", which is just pseudo-scientific gobbledegook). However, on the substantive issue - what happened, who were the killers? - Marples is far less dismissive:

Not all of Dr. Katchanovski’s findings should be dismissed. He has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed. The official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable. His paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely open to a summary or quotation that gives more of a sense of balance so long as it is recognisably true to Marples, and maybe I need to read it again, but I don't think it's right to say that "extrinsic/academic" features aren't due. IK's status as an academic is why his account is taken more seriously than that of typical fringe theorists, so if he is being sloppy in his scholarship then that's definitely relevant. Similarly, some lay readers might see references to Weber as "pseudo-scientific gobbledegook", but Marples is a very highly-regarded and well-recognised senior scholar in this field, probably the only one that we actually mention here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC) I re-read the paper now and realised I misunderstood your point about Weber. You're right; the criticism of the jumble is not the key point. The key point is that it is confusing, polemical, opaque, unscholarly and unwarranted in its conclusions, even though some of its findings can't be dismissed. The non-dismissive paragraph is the exception in a text that is overwhelmingly sharply critical. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand why we have to keep in the article the fact that Marples criticised IK,[9] while we have to remove the fact that Marples argued that some of the issues raised by IK are valid.[10] Let us keep both. Mhorg (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the criticisms are 90% of what he said. Giving both equal weight here would be false balance not NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sources like Cohen, do not really say they support the "theory by Katchanovsky". Rather, they say about their own (Cohen's) views on the subject and only cite Katchanovsky ("See, for example, the reports by..."). Yes, it appears that articles by Katchanovsky were cited in a number of sources, I did not check how many. Should we create a list of all such sources (those citing his articles) and include them all to the page, as suggested above? No, we should not. This is usually done by people with a conflict of interest. We may include only a few sources that provide a non-trivial critical analysis of his work, explain better what the theory by IK was about, or include some other non-trivial information. For example, the article by Marples is such source, and there are possibly a few others. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To rephrase the same, the long list of citing sources provided by IP above is not needed to support anything of substance on the page; this is pure WP:PROMOTION. of Ivan Katchanovski and his questionable findings, just as restoration of a long list of publications by IK. [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be WP:PROMOTION if the sentence were not followed by ... was criticised by scholars David R. Marples (who called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"), University of Calgary's Bohdan Harasymiw, Taras Kuzio and Serhiy Kvit, as well as media outlet The Bulwark. The two sentences balance each other and provide the readers with a verifiable account of the reception of IK's theory: supporters and critics. However, if you remove the first sentence on supporters and leave the second sentence on critics, the article qualifies as a clear case of WP:PROMOTION - promotion of ideas opposite to those of IK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry to disagree, but the pattern of editing this article by IPs, their comments on this talk pages and suggestion to include a list of 14 citing sources in such manner (above in this thread) look to me as a typical promotion of the author and his fringe ideas.My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree, and if so one or more editors on this page have a potential conflict of interest. I have tagged the page accordingly. Nangaf (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that all positive reviews have disappeared from the article. While Taras Kuzio's criticism has been added again (some time ago I pointed out that the Kuzio's Twitter profile,[14] shows in the header a strange image which one user here claimed to represent the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fighters - I read in our Wikipedia article: "UPA carried out an ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of Volhynia and eastern Galicia, resulting in between 50,000 and 100,000 deaths." - and sounds like a laudatory image. Can we consider him reliable on issues concerning Ukraine?). However, I got lost in the many long discussions... deleting all positive reviews could be a violation of NPOV, right? Mhorg (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The response of the academic community has been broadly negative. There are two sources that attest to that -- Marples and Channell-Justice. (One presumes that the academic community is his primary audience: both Marples and Kuzio comment that 'The Snipers Massacre' resembles a political polemic more than an academic paper.) Given the polarizing content, it is not really surprising that wider commentary has been divided largely along political lines. (The Bulwark article is the closest I can find to a source that states this explicitly.) The two articles by journalists that are in there at the moment are fairly representative in that respect -- Cathy Young (broadly neocon) and Golovkin (broadly anti-American), so I don't see the article as overwhelmingly one-sided. It's worth pointing out that this is *not* by any stretch of the imagination a mainstream theory, so NPOV does not necessarily mean quoting critics and opponents equally. Many of the sources are low quality and/or only quote Katchanovski, without offering any sort of actual commentary. Less of these is most definitely more. And of course, most of them were originally added by an anonymous sock. Nangaf (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already say in the article that his account was not widely accepted in the scholarly community, attributing this to Channell-Justice. Do you suggest any changes to that paragraph? Alaexis¿question? 06:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/08/02/ukraine-between-the-maidan-and-western-europe/

The Daily Beast is not a RSP[edit]

We are using The Daily Beast[15] for this quote: "The other “stars” listed on the film’s IMDB page are Ivan Katchanovski, an academic promoting conspiracy theories claiming that the protesters shot dead on the Maidan in 2014 were the victims of a “false flag” operation"

From WP:RSP: "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Yet we are using it precisely for a BLP. Mhorg (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference is used to support the claim that the original paper was criticised by ... The Daily Beast. Even deprecated sources (and The Daily Beast is not deprecated) "can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint" (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources). I agree, however, that the verbatim citation should be removed because it is too much detail and adds nothing substantial to what the article already says explicitly in the body - it is there only to show that yes, The Daily Beast did indeed criticise Katchanovski and called him a conspiracy theorist. I don't see the reference as a source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons, but nonetheless I believe we should drop it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this edit: source was not used for a statement of fact; it was an attributed opinion. Don't feel strongly but just want to ensure there is consensus on this before removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said above (and maybe we should refactor the t/p to unify the two threads) I agree that the source was not used for a statement of fact but for an attributed opinion. However, perhaps a verbatim quotation is too much detail. The issue is not very important to me either and I'm fine with any solution - restore as it was, remove the Daily Beast or simply remove the verbatim quote in the footnote. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies I didn't see the thread above when I started this one. I've removed the section head here so this is a single section. My view is that Daily Beast poor source for facts (e.g. for Stone praising Katchanovski) but can be used as an attributed opinion if due, and in this case probably due as one of more mainstream sources. I generally like verbatim quotations in footnotes for clarity, especially for sources which are fully or partially paywalled such as this one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, this is just an opinionated RS. It can be used with attribution, no doubts. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snipers' Massacre[edit]

Entire section should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. There is no doubt that Berkut (special police force) did this. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there is no doubt. Why? I read the analysis of sources on this talk page, and the quantity and credentials of those who believe K's theory are impressive. Has it been falsified? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main article for this is at Euromaidan#Snipers deployed during the climax of the protests. This, and the refs from there, give a clear picture. Even if you don't agree with "no doubt", the "false flag" theory is not even mentioned (as it's WP:FRINGE). See also the NYT[16].) Adoring nanny (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I have not yet studied the issue, I neither agree nor disagree with your "no doubt". I was just asking how do you know, because I'd like to know if there are conclusive sources on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with Adoring Nanny. Yes, it's true that the overwhelming consensus is that the Berkut did it, and our WP article on Euromaidan would rightly treat most of the sources praising Katchanovki as fringe. But Katchanovski is notable for his alternative theories, which, as the sources at the top of the "Reception" section of this talk page above make clear, have been taken up by pro-Kremlin propagandists, including some in academia. The section is therefore important. However, within the rules of BLP, it needs to not be simply promotional puffery listing everyone who's ever included Katchanovski in a footnote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading the section, I don't get the sense that Katchanovski is pushing a discredited theory. Can that be fixed? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to point out that the trial would still seem to be ongoing (this[17] session is in October 2022), so I don't think it can be described as 'conspiracy theories' or 'false', we are still in the realm of speculation.
Also, user Adroing nanny removed a Lev Golikin statement: "According to Lev Golinkin "the Kiev government has been unable to provide a definitive explanation to what happened that day". I think the user's motivation "Misleading because it gives the false impression that Katchanovski's theory might be correct." does not seem valid because from the reported sources, both The Nation and Telegram (quoted in The Nation), the dynamics of that event are still not understood. Could you reinstate it to discuss it here in the TP? Mhorg (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The underlying problem with the content is that per much better sources than The Nation, we do have a broad understanding that Berkut committed the massacre. Obviously not every detail is known. So to include the specific statement, we would first need an overall context that we know that Berkut did this. At that point, the Golovkin statement would still likely fail as it is outdated. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One issue with Golinkin here is that it is SYNTH. Golinkin isn't at that point commenting on Katchanovki and to quote it would be misleading because it would look like he is. It's also far from current. If we wanted a source on who carried out the shootings, we wouldn't use this as our source; it's a film review from six years ago. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is WP:OR and not NPOV, and needs to be removed. Euromaidan#Snipers deployed during the climax of the protests does not state what you claim, and Wikipedia is nor reliable source. 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:98F6:EEA5:3986:EBD2 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is WP:OR, and not NPOV, and needs to be removed. NYT cites discredited model produced by non-experts. "A US architecture company argued in the 3-D model created for Maidan victims’ lawyers that three Maidan protesters were killed from Berkut sectors (SITU, 2018). However, the wound locations of the killed Maidan protesters in the 3-D model did not match the wound locations in the autopsy reports, which were used in this simulation to determine the locations of the shooters and published on the its website.[i] A study by Katchanovski (2018) showed that their wounds locations in this 3-D model were moved sideways and made from top to bottom to nearly horizontal in order to fit Berkut positions, while actual locations of entry and exit wounds pointed towards Maidan-controlled buildings." [18]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337947623_The_far_right_the_Euromaidan_and_the_Maidan_massacre_in_Ukraine 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:98F6:EEA5:3986:EBD2 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, admittedly there are lots of unknowns. See the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations (surprisingly this source is never quoted in the Euromaidan article). A few excerpts:

none of the bullets found at the crime scenes or extracted from the bodies of the victims pointed to the person as having been killed or injured by sniper fire ... the investigation into that incident [shootings on 20 February] demonstrates serious instances of a lack of co-operation and obstructiveness that appear to have been symptomatic of the difficulties encountered by the PGO in investigating wrong-doing by law enforcement officers ... The investigation of Berkut officers ... is illustrative of a lack of co-operation and obstruction by the MoI which seriously impeded progress in this key investigation ... the serious investigative deficiencies identified in this Report have undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the Maidan-related crimes and to identify those responsible.

If you have a look at the pertinent section Euromaidan#Investigation into shooters/snipers, you'll have to admit that it's very confusing and entirely based on news reports in the aftermath of the event (all sources are from 2014, one is from 2015). This in no way implies that Katchanovski is right, but the situation is controversial and murky, and we cannot flaunt too much certainty. Probably the right thing to do would be to blown it up and start over using the best available secondary sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polygraph.info[edit]

I've never come across this fact checking site before. It is not listed at WP:RSP. Until recent changes, it was used in a misleading way in the article. IF Polygraph meets WP:RS, it might be usable for what the source is actually saying. But does Polygraph meet WP:RS? Adoring nanny (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m surprised it’s never been discussed at RSN, although we could ask there. I don’t see why it sousing be RS. It’s a project of VoA and RFE, which are considered reliable by WP consensus. It is listed as a fact-checking tool by Google[19], Credibility Coalition,[20] Countering Disinformation,[21] and Rand.[22] Can you explain what was misleading about its previous use? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source is about how K. pushed a false claim. The use didn't mention that. I've just added Polygraph back in, making the main point made by the source. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In light of the answer from User:Bobfrombrockley above, I think Polygraph belongs in the article. I don't think it should be removed, as User:Gitz6666 did here.[23] That said, I think it should be better integrated with the rest of the text. Polygraph is saying that K's main theory is wrong. The article should reflect that. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Polygraph is actually two articles, 1) [24] and 2) [25]. Source 1) doesn't mention Katchanovski; there's only a tweet by him stating that Another #Maidan #massacre #Bombshell : In #Israel TV #documentary, two more #Georgians state that they had orders from Maidan leader to shoot. A tweet about an Israli documentary about Georgian snipers is clearly UNDUE here. Source 2) is more substantial (although frankly difficult to understand). However, they are not "debunking" Katchanovski, who is not even mentioned, but rather an Italian journalist, Gian Micalessin. What is clear is that none of the two sources deals with IK's theory as presented in the article, that is, that "armed groups and the leadership of the far right organizations, such as the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland, were directly or indirectly involved in various capacities in this massacre of the protesters and the police" (first formulation) and that "the Right Sector and Svoboda had crucial roles in the violent overthrow of the Viktor Yanukovych government, in particular, in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police on February 18–20, 2014" (second formulation). As far as I understand, Right Sector/Svoboda and Georgian snipers are two different subjects. Quoting Polygraph.info as if they were dealing with IK's theory looks like bad WP:SYNTH to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No according to IK himself, (quotation in section below [26]) the "Georgian snipers" is an integral part of the whole conspiracy theory. Hence the rebuttal of "Georgian snipers" should be in the section about whole theory. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may well be an integral part of the theory, along with dozens of other integral elements. As you well know, the falsification of an element of a theory is not the same as the falsification of the theory. I'm not familiar with IK's theory, but I'm familiar with our policies and guidelines, and I know that, since Polygraph.info doesn't deal with IK's theory, this is WP:SYNTH. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's right there in Polygraph.[27] The tweet by K. Another #Maidan #massacre #Bombshell : In #Israel TV #documentary, two more #Georgians state that they had orders from Maidan leader to shoot both Maidan #protesters and police It sure looks verified to me. That's what the section is calling false, isn't it? Is there a wording error I'm missing? Why in particular the "failed verification" tag? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, of course Polygraph tells about the theory by IK. This is crystal clear from Twitter conversation included as supporting info to the article [28]. As about BBC [29], it debunks the claim about "Georgian snipers", hence we can also say on the page that the claim was false with the reference to BBC. That claim was made not only by IK, but also on Italian TV.My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the sentence "Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin" is not supported by the source. Based on the source, we could only write "Katchanovski shared a tweet about an Israeli documentary on Georgian snipers being involved in the Maidan shooting: a theory that Polygraph.info claim they have debunked". I doubt this is DUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How come? The Polygraph does say that the theory was suggested by IK, that it is false, and that it was promoted by Putin. The BBC source only say that the "theory" was false, or at least based on testimonies of unreliable witnesses, to say this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not true, Poligraph.info does not say this: please provide a quotation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says: Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population. Stone himself had previously repeated this claim on social media. The supporting link to Twitter appears just after this and it says: "Reporting from Katchanovski (Stone)... and the claim by Katchanovsky [30] (it is linked from the Polygraph, a secondary RS). One can check other publications by IK (e.g. cited in this section [31]) just to be sure: this is exactly what he proposed in his "theory". Perhaps more refs should be added, such as BBC and the presentation by KI himself, but the Polygraph article clearly say it, and this is a correct/verifiable info. My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't want to check other publications by IK, thank you: that's the way to WP:SYNTH. Nor do I want to read tweets by Oliver Stone about IK: they are utterly irrelevant. Since the source is Polygraph.info, let's stick to it. I see from your quotation that it deals with the Putin-Stone interview - is that right? What it says on IK is... literally nothing! It publishes, however, a tweet by Stone that shares a tweet by IK, and the content of this tweet is that IK saw a documentary on the Isreali TV, which means... WP:UNDUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are in denial. No, of course all content of the publication in Polygraph including references, illustrations and links belong to the publication and needs to be examined. And no, we have an obligation to look at multiple sources to make sure we summarize the facts and views correctly, including views by the subject of this page, of course. My very best wishes (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I make a reasonable suggestion in the interest of the anti-Russian POV-pushing you are so passionate about? Why don't you summarise that source and publish it in the article The Putin Interviews, where it obviously belongs? The source is entirely devoted to Putin-Stone; and Katchanovski is not quoted in the text: he is quoted by Oliver Stone, who retweeted a tweet by Katchanovski. In that tweet, IK does not expound his theory but mentions a TV documentary - how is this part of this article? Keep in mind that IK's theory (as presented in the article) is that the shots came from buildings controlled by the Maidan demonstrators. Rightly or wrongly, he believes there is sufficient evidence to support this conclusion; however, who were the people who fired from those buildings (right-wing militants? Georgian snipers?) is purely hypothetical. To present the Polygraph.info article as having debunked IK's theory is a gross misrepresentation of both the Polygraph.info article and IK's theory. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever you might think, this has been originally included by another contributor, and I only agree it is supported by sources. Moreover, several contributors explained you already why you are wrong in several sections on this talk page. You are editing against consensus on this and some other pages. That's why you made a 3RR violation on this page, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any 3RR violation on this page. Please provide the diffs, strike through or file a report at WP:3RRN. And specify what edit against consensus had I made on this article - adding the tag:Verification needed? That tag is necessary since the statement is not supported by the quoted source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that this discussion has been notified at BLP/N Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note to say that originally Polygraph, along with Daily Beast[32] was also being used a secondary source for Oliver Stone being one of the people who has positively cited IK, as it is better to use secondary sources for such claims (to ensure noteworthiness) rather than primary sources.[33] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it does say that . . . the problem was/is that the main thing Polygraph is saying is that K's theory is false. And we were leaving that part out. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Polygraph.info claims to have debunked the "Georgian sniper theory", or at least proved that three alleged Georgian snipers lied to the Italian journalist. However, they do not claim to have falsified Katchanovski's theory that the gunfire came from Maidan-controlled buildings. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Gitz, I think the text as it is now written in the article is a BLP vio. That part about Georgian snipers should be removed, along with that allusion to what Putin says, which makes no sense. Mhorg (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is very strange story. Yes, according to the cited RS (published in 2017-2019), three alleged Georgian snipers lied. However, IK brings these "Georgian snipers" again in 2022 and contiinue using their "testimonies" (see quotation of his 2022 presentation in another section [34]). Well, this is typical for promoters of conspiracy theories.My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a biography[edit]

This should be a biograhy, it is however dominated by one controversial subject. Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True but that seems to be the only thing he’s notable in relation to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is a biographical article, and it has to include a biography. Besides: "His publications, interviews, and comments appeared in more than 1000 media outlets in over 60 countries. They include the following media: Associated Press, BBC Ukrainian, Canadian Press, CBC, CBC News, CBC Radio, CTV, CTV News, Financial Post, Fox 9 News, France 24, France Télévisions, Daily Beast, Global TV, Globe and Mail, Guardian, La Presse, Métro, Omni Television, National Post, Radio Canada International, Reuters, Vice, Voice of America, Washington Post, Washington Times, Yahoo News Canada, ABC Radio, Al-Jazeera, Annahar, ARD radio, Canadian Dimension, Channel One, China Newsweek, CNN Brazil, Consortium News, Deník N, Der Standard, East & West, Expresso, Euronews, Frettabladid, Jyllands-Posten, La Razón, Metro World News, Moscow Times, Nacional, NIUS diario, OpenDemocracy, OstWest, Prague Post, Pravda (Slovakia), R24, Radio National, Real News, RT, Rubikon, Sky News Australia, Telepolis, Transitions Online (Central Europe Review), TRT World, Truthout, Veja, WION TV, 112 Ukraine TV, 24 Channel, Apostrophe, Avers TV, First National Channel, ICTV, Holos Ukrainy, Kommentarii, Kyiv Post, NewsOne, Radio Liberty, Priamyi Kanal, Radio Svoboda, RBC Ukraine, Strana, STB, Volyn TV, and Ukrainska pravda."[35] 2607:FEA8:BC5F:AAA0:39E2:89A0:BB5B:EB5 (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP user, you appear very knowledgeable about Ivan Katchanovski. I've tried to leave notices[36] on some of your user talk pages, but I have no way of knowing if you've received any. You should be aware of WP:COI. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IPs editing this page are all based on Ontario, oddly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see [37]: "These studies concluded that the Maidan massacre of the protesters was a false flag operation and that far right organizations were involved in the mass killing of both police and the protesters.". So yes, that is what he is claiming. In other articles he was saying only that right wing movements played a role in the events (something that no one disputes), although he did seem to imply in all papers that the people were killed by snipers from "Right Sector" and "Svoboda" (hence this first quotation is merely a clarification). As a note, this 1st claim was apparently self-published in Social Science Research Network. Was not it? My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this regard, one must remove or clarify the phrase "The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by ...". Did they support the false flag theory or just the involvement of right wing forces to the events? These are very different things. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, IMO the article is a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jyllands-Posten[edit]

Can the Ontario IP editor who added it, or anyone else, post a quote from the J-P article?[38] It's paywalled and, given the Court House news article doesn't mention IK, it seems a good idea to verify whether he is indeed "cited favourably" and if it is due. Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian media[edit]

The passage currently tagged cn about "Russian media" citing IK was originally "Kremlin propaganda" based on secondary sources. I think this originally cited Taras Kuzio who says "Kremlin propaganda, cites Katchanovski’s bizarre conspiracy theories" and The Bulwark which says "Kremlin propagandists have pushed “false flag” narratives—endorsed by a few contrarian scholars such as the University of Ottawa political scientist Ivan Katchanovski". This is presumably too week to include so should go? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just removed the reference to unspecified Russian media and the tag:Citation needed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misleading content in the article and the discussion page[edit]

Paper presentation and sources

The article and the discussion page contain misleading content which has to be corrected.

Katchanovski presented his original paper concerning the snipers' massacre at the Ukrainian Studies seminar at the University of Ottawa, and mentioned its finding during presentation of a paper on the war in Donbas at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies conference. Katchanovski stated this in his interview and linked the video of his presentation at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies conference:

"I did not present my Maidan massacre paper at this conference. As the video of my presentation shows, I presented a different paper – one concerning the civil war in Donbas. (This happens to be the most cited academic paper on that subject.) I merely discussed the findings of my Maidan massacre study, which I first presented at the Ukrainian Studies seminar at the University of Ottawa."

Marples, Kuzio, and Harasymiv falsely stated that Katchanovski presented the Snipers' massacre paper at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies conference and attacked this paper without even reading it. The blog by Marples that is quoted in the article and the discussion page confused these two papers.


Kuzio and Kvit have far-right backgrounds, and their ad hominem attacks of the Katchanovski's study are politically motivated. The following article notes the far-right background of Kvit:  

"Kvit has also participated in robustly nationalist public activism, promoting Dontsovian ideology through the “Dmytro Dontsov Research-Ideological Center.” In the 1990s Kvit was a member of the Presidium of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists and the organization “Tryzub imeni Bandery,” a wing of KUN which split from the party in 2000. He is open about the fact that he does not regard Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the “Right Sector” as an extremist." 152.206.221.220 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at Kuzio again, and he says: In October of this year, Ivan Katchanovski who is based at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa presented a paper to the Chair of Ukrainian Studies at his university [Ottawa] and a second paper at the conference “Negotiating Borders: Comparing the Experience of Crimea, Europe and Ukraine” that was organized by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta. The two papers have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship. He then goes on to discuss the claims about separatism in the Alberta paper, and then the claims about snipers in both papers. I'll amend the first sentence to accord with this and IK's clarification above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is his theory fringe?

The Katchanovski theory of the Maidan massacre is not fringe. It is supported by the evidence from the trial and investigation in Ukraine: “The Maidan massacre trial and investigation produced overwhelming evidence that Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers at Maidan-controlled buildings, rather than by government snipers or Berkut policemen — who were nevertheless charged with the crime. The evidence includes videos, testimonies by over 100 wounded protesters, several dozen prosecution witnesses, and forensic ballistic and medical examinations by government experts.”The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.206.221.220 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Even Wiki's Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty pages state that they engage in propaganda. The Polygraph claim concerning the Georgian snipers has been debunked: “The prosecution and the Maidan victims’ lawyers claimed that these Georgians were “actors” even though their identities are confirmed by various evidence, such as documents by the Ukrainian, Armenian, Belarusian, and Georgian authorities (a video testimony of one of them was recently admitted as evidence and shown at the Maidan massacre trial).” Canadian Dimension

This article has a history of POV-pushing IPs. In any case, we follow WP:RS. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Katchanovski theory of the Maidan massacre is not fringe. It is supported by the evidence from the trial and investigation in Ukraine. There's a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. We're not here to establish if K. theory is right or wrong: we don't have the know-how, time, resources and motivation for that. We're here to summarize what reliable sources say about his theories. We don't produce new knowledge, we circulate existing knowledge and significant points of view. Please read WP:OR, spec. WP:PRIMARY, plus WP:RSPRIMARY and also WP:FRINGE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The supporting evidence from the Maidan massacre trial and investigation is contained in reliable sources which have to be summarized in the article. These reliable sources are authored by Katchanovski and include the quoted article published by the New York University Jordan research center, a peer-reviewed article, and the following paper presented at the 10th World Congress of the International Council for Central and East European Studies at Concordia University in 2021:
"The Maidan massacre trials and investigations have revealed various evidence that four killed and several dozen wounded policemen and at least the absolute majority of 49 killed and 157 wounded Maidan protesters were massacred on February 20, 2014 by snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas. Such evidence includes testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded protesters, several dozens of prosecution witnesses, dozens of defense witnesses, and 14 self-admitted members of Maidan snipers groups. Videos presented at the trial showed that times of shooting of the absolute majority of protesters did not coincide with times of shooting by the Berkut policemen, who were charged with their massacre. Forensic medical examinations determined that the overwhelming majority of the protesters were shot from steep directions from the sides or the back. Initial ballistic examinations did not match bullets extracted from the bodies of killed and wounded protesters to the Berkut Kalashnikovs. Forensic examinations of the bullet holes by the government experts for the Maidan massacre trial suggested that Berkut policemen were shooting in the Hotel Ukraina snipers above the Maidan protesters and in trees and poles. The analysis shows cover-up and stonewalling of the investigations and trials by the Maidan governments and the far right. The prosecution denied that there were any snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings. Not a single person is convicted or under arrest for the massacre of the protesters and the police almost 8 years after one of the most documented mass killings in history.."

But some editors push their original research concerning the Maidan massacre and try to discredit Katchanovski in his biographical article and its discussion page.

152.206.221.119 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did he say who were these shooters ("snipers in the [presumably] Maidan-controlled buildings")? Were they Ukrainian nationalists or some other shooters who could come to these buildings (like Russian military snipers)? My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic background and political views

The misleading information concerning academic background and political views of Katchanovski also has to be corrected. Katchanovski described his academic background and political views in the following book chapter, which was published in a book by Hovedland press and is a reliable source: 

         “Previously I held various academic positions at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, the Department of Politics at the State University of New York at Potsdam, the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and the Kluge Center for Scholars at the Library of Congress… 
         I was born in Lutsk in Western Ukraine. I got my undergraduate education at Kyiv National Economic University. However, the chair of my department threatened to expel me from the university in 1990 when I proposed to write my final thesis based on theories of Western economists and Max Weber. The department had no problem that I proposed to write my thesis in Ukrainian. My thesis in Ukrainian argued that the Soviet economic system was inefficient compared to a free market economy and was bound to collapse. Because Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost were making certain headways in Ukraine, I was not expelled but given ”C” for my final thesis in spite of having excellent grades in all university courses….
         I could not pursue graduate education then because it required recommendation from a university from which I graduated. I worked for two years at the Lutsk District financial department, where I dealt with financial compensation for hundreds of people who were arrested or exiled as OUN and UPA supporters or family members. But the Soviet Union collapsed, and I was accepted in 1992 into a graduate program in political sociology at Central European University, a newly established Western-style university with professors from top Western universities and English language curriculum. After my graduation, I was accepted to graduate programs in political science at London School of Economics and in economics at George Mason University. I got a Master’s degree in Economics at George Mason located in Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC because its top-ranked program had unique focus on comparative economics and intersection of economics and politics and because I won a grant and was granted tuition waiver. 
        I received my Ph.D. from the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the greatest modern political sociologists and political scientists, was my dissertation adviser. I was also his research assistant and co-authored a book and a number of other academic studies with him.1 My doctoral dissertation analyzed regional political divisions and separatist conflicts in Ukraine and Moldova. Its revised and updated version with a foreword by Francis Fukuyama, who was my dissertation committee member, was published by a German academic press. This was the only comprehensive study of regional divisions and conflicts in Ukraine and Moldova, in particular, separatism in Crimea, Donbas, and Transdniestria. It suggested, contrary to the dominant view among scholars of Ukraine at that time, that possibilities of a break-up and civil war in Ukraine were real, similarly to a violent separation of pro-Russian Transdniestria region in neighboring Moldova…
        I attended the first opposition demonstrations organized by the Ukrainian Helsinki Group and then Rukh in Kyiv when I studied in the university in the end of the 1980s. At that time and since I favored not nationalism but liberal democratic ideas and had no ties to any political parties or politicians... I personally favored and continue to favor liberal democracy in Ukraine and membership of Ukraine in the European  Union (EU), even though my research shows that both are unlikely to happen in foreseeable future.“

False theory on Georgian snipers[edit]

Is this source reliable enough to support the claim that K. proposed a "false theory" shared by Putin? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the question is whether Polygraph is an RS, see discussion section above on that topic: I think it is, but we can take it to RSN if it's in doubt.
If the question is whether the source supports our wording, I'm not sure. Stone said "Georgians were hired to shoot #Maidan protestors in #Ukraine. This action set up the American-supported coup", and cites Katchanovski and an RT journalist named Bryan MacDonald as his sources. (Katchanovski said "two more #Georgians state that they had orders from Maidan leader to shoot both Maidan #protesters and police in order to boost protests and overthrow Yanukovych" and links to an Israeli YouTube video that is no longer available.) Polygraph comment: "However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim, initially made by an Italian journalist who blamed the Euromaidan killings on Georgian mercenaries operating under the direction of former Georgian Prime Minister Mikhail Saakashvili. That account was full of holes, from clearly forged Georgian security service documents to video footage uncovered by BBC Monitoring allegedly proving the men were in Kyiv in 2014, but video which was later found to have been shot in December 2016." Polygraph link to their own earlier article https://www.polygraph.info/a/journalist-claims-georgian-mercenary-snipers-killed-civilians-during-maidan/6741699.html and to BBC Monitoring https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c1dnrgu6 both of which seem to thoroughly debunk the general claims, but it's hard to see if it relates to the specific video IK links to. From archive org, that seems to be a Russian language YouTube channel called iLandTV and the Russian caption is "The terrible truth about Kyiv snipers, which is hidden by the Ukrainian authorities, in the documentary film by Anna Stefan". It looks like Polygraph is definitively saying the Georgian mercenaries theory is false. Did Putin also promote the theory? Yes, according to Polygraph: Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population. However, it feels like synth to add that sentence, as it does not relate to IK. I'd delete the second sentence, but leave the first sentence as it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If IK proposed a theory, then saying something brief about that theory (e.g. it was false and supported by Putin) is not WP:SYN because that is what the cited source does. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what I don't understand is 1) did IK "promote" the theory meaning that he wrote a paper on it, he framed and publicly exposed the theory, or did he just share a tweet about a documentary he saw on Israeli TV? 2) what's the theory about? Is it about Georgians snipers having been responsible for the killings and having been hired to shoot by Saakashvili (as claimed by the Italian journalist) or is it about (an Israeli tv documentary reporting) two Georgians' claim that they had been ordered to shoot (IK's tweet)? Since the article deals with Stone rather than IK, answering is not easy. If all we know about IK involvement with the theory is what we read in that tweet of his, I doubt this is WP:DUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, looking at preprint of his The Russia-Ukraine War and the Maidan in Ukraine Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Montreal, September 15-18, 2022, page 20 (available online), he claimed the following:
Fourteen self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups admitted in the media, social media, and the government investigation that the massacre of the protesters and/or police was perpetrated by Maidan snipers. For example, 7 Georgian self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups in their testimonies for the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine and their interviews in American, Italian and Israeli TV documentaries and Macedonian and Russian media stated that their and other groups of the Maidan snipers, including the far-right-linked group, received orders, weapons, and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former Georgian government leaders and commanders to massacre both protesters and the police in order to stop a peaceful agreement that was to be signed by Yanukovych and Maidan leaders.They testified that they saw snipers from Georgia, the Baltic States, and the far right-linked special armed Maidan company shooting from the Maidan-controlled buildings. The identities of the specific Georgians were confirmed by their Georgian passports, plane tickets, and Armenian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian official documents
I am not saying anything of this is true, but that is what he claimed. This is a full-fledged false flag conspiracy theory that indeed includes "Georgian snipers". My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such quotation appears in his paper "The Russia-Ukraine War and the Maidan in Ukraine" [39] in Social Science Research Network, pages 20-21. I assume it is self-published. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
right. So if the "Georgian snipers theory" is nothing but a subset of the "Main theory", so to say, perhaps it doesn't deserve specific mention in a self-standing paragraph, especially because this source (allegedly debunking the theory) looks to me incredibly confusing to the point of being completely unintelligible, the reliability of Polygraph is uncertin, and the link of all this with IK is quite flimsy/extrinsic (a tweet). I'd get rid of all this stuff. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This whole quotation is not a "subset" of anything, but his main theory. He says that Georgian snipers were among the shooters according to his theory. This is an important part of his claim. His preprint includes some links to support his claims cited above, mostly to YouTube, but I have a trouble following them (some of the links are restricted, others dead or published by Katchanovski himself), so that all seems very much fishy to me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what did Poligraph/Voice of America debunk precisely? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not only Poligraph, but a number of sources mentioned by Polighraph and mentioned by Bobfrombrockley above. I understand that the claim about "Georgian snipers" was found to be false, which also disproves the entire thing (see direct quotation above), i.e. the false flag theory. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find myself wondering if we need to pull it all together better than we currently do. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sure. First, we need to say more clearly what his claim is. He (quotation) "concluded that the Maidan massacre of the protesters was a false flag operation and that far right organizations were involved in the mass killing of both police and the protesters.". No need to describe his every presentation on every meeting about this. Secondly, we need to say if his claim was supported or disproved. Here, we can't just say "The analysis in this paper was cited favourably...". Do they support his false flag theory? If so, they should be cited, but this must be checked. At least a part of it (as relates to "Georgian snipers") was apparently disproved; I am not sure about the rest. That also should be clearly stated with refs and possibly additional info from these secondary refs. One should also quote David R. Marples here, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about re-writing along these lines, but I can not even start due to activities by other contributors on this page and several noticeboards. These participants claim we should not use multiple sources to verify or properly summarize claims, that sources do not say what they say etc. [40]. So I would rather not contribute to these pages knowing they will revert my edits in a matter of minutes. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Georgian snipers theory is certainly not debunked. Polygraph and BBC Monitoring claimed that these Georgians were fake and therefore their statements were fake. This was debunked since:
“The testimonies by the absolute majority of the wounded Maidan protesters and several dozen of prosecution witnesses are generally consistent with testimonies of 8 Georgian ex-military for the Maidan massacre trial and with their interviews in American, Italian and Israeli TV documentaries and Macedonian and Russian media. Three of them testified at the Prosecutor General Office of Belarus on request of the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine following an appeal of Berkut lawyers in the case of the killings and wounding of the police during the Maidan massacre. The Maidan massacre trial in November 2021 admitted as evidence a testimony of one of these Georgians who confessed of being a member of a group of Maidan snipers. Three self-admitted Georgian snipers gave written depositions to Berkut lawyers for the Maidan massacre trial, two provided notarized letters to the Ukrainian courts and offered to testify via a video link from Belarus… They provided their real names and aliases, passports, plane tickets to Ukraine, videos, photos, and other evidence corroborating their identities and their visits to Ukraine. Armenian and Belarusian government agencies confirmed identities of some of these Georgians.”
“The prosecution and the Maidan victims’ lawyers claimed that these Georgians were “actors” even though their identities are confirmed by various evidence, such as documents by the Ukrainian, Armenian, Belarusian, and Georgian authorities (a video testimony of one of them was recently admitted as evidence and shown at the Maidan massacre trial).” Canadian Dimension 152.206.221.33 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard Sakwa, Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, Stephen F. Cohen, Volodymyr Ishchenko, David Mandel, Jack Matlock, Nation, Jacobin, and other scholars, experts and media outlets favorably cited the Katchanovski's theory of the Maidan massacre. Their relevant quotes and citations are in the discussion page above. The recent removal of these reliable sources in the article is vandalism and original research. 152.206.221.33 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you Ivan Katchanovski or related to him? The Polygraph and BBC are WP:RS. If they say "these Georgians were fake and therefore their statements were fake", this is indeed an outright debunking of the conspiracy theory. As about the "testimonies", we need (a) these testimonies themselves to be reliably published (apparently, they were not reliably published, we do not have even texts), and (b) some secondary RS that are independent from IK and specifically discuss what these testimonies say. This is pretty much a Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL territory. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The “Georgian snipers” theory is definitely a fringe conspiracy theory and that a few outlets and individuals have spoken favorably about it says more about them than the theory. This is Ghouta attack style conspiracy bullshit all over again. Volunteer Marek 19:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Anyone even remotely knowledgeable about the broader subject recognizes these names instantly. The same names pop up in similar discussions with exactly similar view points over and over again. They’re always used to prop up some pro Putinist propaganda or piece of Kremlin disinformation. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bandeira for example actually argued that Putin had tried to “diffuse” the conflict in 2014 (apparently by invading and occupying Crimea), that Ukrainians are Nazis, referred to Ukrainian government as a “junta” and a “regime”, has called the downing of MH17 a “false flag operation” (by evil western powers of course), has falsely accused Ukrainians of committing atrocities in the Donbas war and praised Putin for sending “humanitarian aid” to Donbas (presumably in the form of military equipment) and so on and so forth. Here’s just a taste [41]. I’m sorry but this is all WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory bullshit and we are NOT including praise for the subject of the article from folks like that without adequately explains to the reader that they are fringe conspiracy theorists. Either take them out or properly explain their background (which would make it undue) or otherwise we’re misinforming the readers. Volunteer Marek 19:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that one of people suggested to be cited on this page was Guy Mettan, a Swiss official/politician who received a medal/order from Putin (our page say: "While parliamentary regulations prohibit elected officials from receiving decorations from foreign governments, the Grand Council of Geneva authorised him to receive the medal on a 36-35 vote"). And his book was titled Creating Russophobia. From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria. ... My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we say that the theory that Polygraph describes as false is the same as the theory presented in the conference, paper, etc? Right now, to the reader they appear to be different. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several issues here.
  1. His initial conclusions were based on "video footage, TV and Internet broadcasting, and radio intercepts, as well as bullet holes, in trees and other places." His latest conclusions (see quotation above in this section dated 2022) were based on some alleged "testimonies", including the debunked testimonies by Georgians. His initial and final conclusions seem to be exactly the same. Having a substantial part of his conclusions (quoted above) to be disproved undermines whole thing.
  2. Do the views by IK qualify as WP:FRINGE? Do we know a couple of other researchers who used the same or similar data and came to the same or similar conclusions? I did not see any. The "testimonies" are not accessible and were not reliably published. The "Georgian snipers" have been debunked. Based on that, it is indeed a fringe work, not to be used on pages other than this page.
  3. How this should be described? Since his work was described in other secondary RS, one should probably use these 3rd party secondary RS (cited in Reception section of this talk page), rather than his own publications which are primary sources. Note that some of his own publications (like [42]) are not peer reviewed or self-published and do NOT pass WP:SELFPUB because they include "claims about third parties". When we use 3rd party secondary RS we should use only sources that say something substantial about his work, not just "research of this question has been conducted by I. Katchanovski. See his article...".My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand how your point 3 (one should probably use these 3rd party secondary RS (cited in Reception section of this talk page)) is compatible with removing all reliable sources expressing support for IK's theory: [43]. You removed the following paragraph:

    The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by scholars including Free University of Berlin's Volodymyr Ishchenko,[1][2] Richard Sakwa,[3] Cambridge University’s David Lane,[4] Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira,[5] UQAM's David Mandel,[6] and Stephen F. Cohen,[7] and by former diplomat Jack Matlock[8] as well as The Nation,[9] Jacobin,[10] and Jyllands-Posten.[11]

References

  1. ^ Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2016-10-01). "Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation". European Politics and Society. 17 (4): 453–472. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. ISSN 2374-5118. S2CID 156830359.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Marples was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Sakwa, Richard (2014-12-18). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85773-804-2.
  4. ^ Lane, David (2016-10-01). "The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation". International Critical Thought. 6 (4): 623–644. doi:10.1080/21598282.2016.1242084. ISSN 2159-8282. S2CID 157373994.
  5. ^ Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2019). The World Disorder. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03204-3. ISBN 978-3-030-03203-6. S2CID 239319086.
  6. ^ Mandel, David (2016-01-02). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156X.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251.
  7. ^ Cohen, Stephen F. (2018-01-03). "Four Years of Ukraine and the Myths of Maidan". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-09-30.
  8. ^ Matlock, Jack (2022). "Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided" (PDF). Krasno Analysis. On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government's security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators.1 See Ivan Katchanovski, "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations," NYU Jordan Center News.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
  11. ^ Larsen, Poul Funder (2018-02-21). "Historisk massedrab i europæisk hovedstad er omgærdet af mystik". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). Retrieved 2022-12-15.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that this discussion on the Georgian snipers has been notified at BLP/N. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Massive removal of sources[edit]

We're dealing with Ivan Katchanovski's theory about the snipers at Maidan. Various editors (such as @Bobfrombrockley, @Mhorg and @Adoring nanny) have discussed for weeks how to report the reception of the theory and what sources to include. We were providing information on both those who have embraced the theory and those who have criticised it. Then on the 30-31 December @My very best wishes and @Volunteer Marek joined the talk page discussions (as usual, one came right after the other) and removed the paragraph on the supporting authors [44][45], thus turning the article into a sort of attack page.

On the basis of what arguments? Volunteer Marek explained that The “Georgian snipers” theory is definitely a fringe conspiracy theory and that a few outlets and individuals have spoken favorably about it says more about them than the theory. This is Ghouta attack style conspiracy bullshit all over again ... Anyone even remotely knowledgeable about the broader subject recognizes these names instantly.

But this is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT kind of arguments. Volodymyr Ishchenko (Free University of Berlin), Richard Sakwa (University of Kent), David Lane (Cambridge University), Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (São Paulo), David Mandel (UQAM) and Stephen F. Cohen (New York University) are all reputable academics with a research record in the area of political science and comparative politics. Some of them are experts in Soviet and post-Soviet politics. Moreover, Jack Matlock is a former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and an academic at Princeton. Bobfrombrockley and Mhorg have made a detailed analysis of these sources and others in the Reception section of this talk page. Many supporting authors (journalists, academics without expertise in the area) were excluded because they were not considered authoritative and significant enough: Chris Kaspar De Ploeg, Gordon M. Hahn, Kees van der Pijl, Susan Watkins, John Foster, Guy Mettan and Lev Golinkin.

All these people lent some credence to Ivan Katchanovski's theory. This is not so surprising since the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel concluded that serious investigative deficiencies had undermined the authorities' ability to establish the circumstances of the Maidan-related crimes and to identify those responsible. Basically the post-Maidan government did not investigate the shootings effectively, which created the conditions for all kind of speculations. But if nobody knows for sure what happened, I doubt Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes know better. Even if all the supporting sources were opinionated and biased, they would still qualify as reliable sources per WP:BIASED.

We can only report what we RSs tell us: "Ivan Katchanovski said whatever, Tom and Dick agreed, and Harry disagreed + sources". This is what WP:NPOV requires us to do: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views ... Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence.

Therefore I propose to restore the following text (which includes both the paragraph removed by VM and MVBW and the text I'm now removing pending discussion):

removed text

The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by scholars including Free University of Berlin's Volodymyr Ishchenko,[1][2] Richard Sakwa,[3] Cambridge University’s David Lane,[4] Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira,[5] UQAM's David Mandel,[6] and Stephen F. Cohen,[7] and by former diplomat Jack Matlock[8] as well as The Nation,[9] Jacobin,[10] and Jyllands-Posten.[11]

Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by scholars David R. Marples (who called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"), University of Calgary's Bohdan Harasymiw, Taras Kuzio and Serhiy Kvit, as well as media outlet The Bulwark.[2][12][13][14][15] Marples also stated that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable" and "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."[2] (...) In 2018, Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin.[16]

References

  1. ^ Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2016-10-01). "Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation". European Politics and Society. 17 (4): 453–472. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. ISSN 2374-5118. S2CID 156830359.
  2. ^ a b c David R. Marples (2014-10-23). "The Snipers' Massacre in Kyiv". Current Politics in Ukraine. Retrieved 2022-06-19. reprinted in Euromaidan Press
  3. ^ Sakwa, Richard (2014-12-18). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85773-804-2.
  4. ^ Lane, David (2016-10-01). "The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation". International Critical Thought. 6 (4): 623–644. doi:10.1080/21598282.2016.1242084. ISSN 2159-8282. S2CID 157373994.
  5. ^ Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2019). The World Disorder. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03204-3. ISBN 978-3-030-03203-6. S2CID 239319086.
  6. ^ Mandel, David (2016-01-02). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156X.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251.
  7. ^ Cohen, Stephen F. (2018-01-03). "Four Years of Ukraine and the Myths of Maidan". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-09-30.
  8. ^ Matlock, Jack (2022). "Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided" (PDF). Krasno Analysis. On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government's security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators.1 See Ivan Katchanovski, "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations," NYU Jordan Center News.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
  11. ^ Larsen, Poul Funder (2018-02-21). "Historisk massedrab i europæisk hovedstad er omgærdet af mystik". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). Retrieved 2022-12-15.
  12. ^ Taras Kuzio (2017-04-11). "Umland needs a more balanced approach". New Eastern Europe. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
  13. ^ Kuzio, Taras (2019-01-29). "Ukraine "experts" in the West and Putin's military aggression: a new academic "orientalism"?". Головна сторінка eKMAIR (in Latin). Retrieved 2022-06-19. ([pdf https://www.cicerofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Kuzio_Western_Experts_on_Russian_Aggression_Ukraine.pdf])
  14. ^ Serhiy Kvit (2019-06-13). "Ukraine in the struggle for independence in the age of post-truth". KyivPost. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
  15. ^ "What Really Happened in Ukraine in 2014—and Since Then". The Bulwark. 2022-04-13. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
  16. ^ Echols, William; Yarst, Nik (2019-07-15). "Vladimir Putin Speaks with Oliver Stone: New Interview - Old False Claims". Polygraph.info. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC); ; edited 12:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not “reputable academics” and they do not “give credence to the theory”. They’re mostly a who’s who’s list of WP:FRINGE Putin apologist that some people drag out in every discussion about Russia and Ukraine in the same way that the same small set of academics (not these guys of course) is always dragged out in climate change denial discussions, in evolution denial discussions and flat earth theory discussions. Yes, it is possible, if one looks hard enough, to find folks with PhDs, who support fringe views and wacky conspiracy theories.
How many of these people claim that MH17 being shot down by Russian forces in 2014 was a “false flag” operation by the west?
Matlock is the only one on that list that may qualify as not fringe and even there it’s borderline. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
resolved and off topic
@Gitz6666 .. as usual, one came right after the other --> what that has to do with your proposal to restore the text Gitz? And yes, (surprise!), this article is on my watch list also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gitz6666 Don’t remove it now. Restore and strikethrough please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
please check talk page history and strike through your comment @GizzyCatBella. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that’s not my problem you I haven't see it but I’ll be polite and I’ll collapse this off topic exchange shortly - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your first comment, although incredibly timely, was correct. The second one, however, was posted after I had already restored the text and stricken it; so it was a good-faithed mistake on your part, which you could correct by striking through it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gitz6666 Got it 👍 - but let’s put this to rest already. (e-mail me if you want to continue chatting about it, retirees have plenty of time 🙂) -
You linked to a diff in which you say Some sources like Cohen, do not really say they support the "theory by Katchanovsky". So even if this were true, it would not justify the removal of all the other sources: at the most, it would justify the removal of Cohen, and we would then be discussing about that. However, your reading of Cohen is quite peculiar. Cohen writes the following in his 2018 article in The Nation:

Though the overthrow involved people in the streets, this was a coup. How much of it was spontaneous and how much directed, or inspired, by high-level actors in the West also remains unclear. But one other myth needs to be dispelled. The rush to seize Yanukovych’s residence was triggered by snipers who killed some 80 or more protesters and policemen on Maidan. It was long said that the snipers had been sent by Yanukovych, but it has now been virtually proven that the shooters were instead from the neofascist group Right Sector among the protesters on the square. (See, for example, the reports of the scholar Ivan Katchanovski)

Based on this, I'd say that yes, Cohen supports the "theory by Katchanovsky". We should briefly mention this in this article because it is relevant as far as IK's theory's influence/reception is concerned, and we should also modify the relevant section on the Euromaidan article, which now is incredibly messy, by providing a brief and clear account of the various views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I re-included this because you asked. Who else you think needs to be included? My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of them. As you can read above, editors working on this article had already made a selection. We had excluded Chris Kaspar De Ploeg, Gordon M. Hahn, Kees van der Pijl, Susan Watkins, John Foster, Guy Mettan and Lev Golinkin; and we had decided to include the following sentence and corresponding names/sources:

The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by scholars including Free University of Berlin's Volodymyr Ishchenko,[1][2] Richard Sakwa,[3] Cambridge University’s David Lane,[4] Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira,[5] UQAM's David Mandel,[6] and Stephen F. Cohen,[7] and by former diplomat Jack Matlock[8] as well as The Nation,[9] Jacobin,[10] and Jyllands-Posten.[11]

If you, Volunteer Marek or others don't agree on the inclusion of some of these names, we can discuss them one by one, as we've done so far. But removing all of them in one fell swoop can't be conducive to cooperation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this is not true. "Editors working on this article" have not "made a selection". Please stop making claims of false consensus. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you read the talk page starting with "Reception", you'll see that since June at least four editors and a couple of IP addresses have discussed which sources/authors deserve to be included. Until you popped up here, we had different views but no edit war. You can also use Ctrl+Alt+T and look for discussions concerning specific authors, e.g. Kees van der Pijl, Susan Watkins, Mandel, Matlock and Marples; you'll see that we've invested a lot of time discussing who to include and how, using what words. Then you come along and delete this work on the basis of your personal opinions about who is a legitimate and authoritative voice and who is a pro-Putin conspiracy theorist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is indeed such a discussion, but this discussion, contrary to your claim, does not result in a "selection" or anything of a sort. You just made that part up. Volunteer Marek 02:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources were selected through discussion and many authors/sources were removed by @Bobfrombrockley and (if I'm not wrong) by @Adoring nanny as well. Only authors/sources that qualify as independent and reliable secondary sources, in particular only WP:SCHOLARSHIP with specific expertise in political science/comparative polics/Ukrainian politics, etc., were included in the article among the supporters of IK's theory. E.g., see my argument above (at 23:37, 2 December 2022) that Susan Watkins is UNDUE because its just a passing reference by an academic who has no expertise on Russo-Ukrainian politics (she is Professor of Women's Writing at Leeds Beckett University and author of this essay in "New Left Review" [47]); we removed her from the article (or perhaps we didn't report her name).
But the main point is not the editorial work we've done - which IMO was at least good. The point is that I have yet to see a justification for only reporting the opinions of Katchanovski's critics. Why on hell should we remove all reference to authors who accepted his theory, even when they qualify as WP:RS, and leave only the critics in the article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please indicate where and how these sources "were selected" because I see no such thing in that discussion (quoting "my argument" - as in your own - is not it). Also this kind of behavior appears to be a petty "if you remove text I like then I just remove text you like" WP:POINT violation. Volunteer Marek 03:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's called WP:BLPBALANCE and it's policy. You can't unilaterally turn this article into an attack page. If you want the critics, restore the supporters: a well-sourced text on the reception of IK's theory will be back online. Alternativly remove both critics and supporters and try to build a consensus on a different text. But removing only the supporters is just WP:ADVOCACY, a BLP violation and a clear case of disruptive editing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like don’t have any support for your desired changes @Gitz6666 - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with what Gitz6666 reported. I cannot understand how it is possible that some users are removing all the reliable sources that speak of validity in its analysis,[48] while leaving all the parts that discredit it,[49] breaking the rule of WP:BLPBALANCE. Currently, the article resembles an WP:ATTACK. Mhorg (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Another user who has done a lot of work on the article and the sources (much more than me, actually) is @Bobfrombrockley: I am pinging him because I think it's important that he gives us his opinion on the WP:BLPBALANCE of the article after the recent changes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also @Adoring nanny: they said on multiple occasions that they believe IK is a conspiracy theorist (e.g., Entire section should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. There is no doubt that Berkut (special police force) did this). However, they engaged in collaborative editing with the other users active on the page and I can see that most of their arguments and edits were accepted: e.g. about the opportunity of removing Hahn and van der Pijl; about the opportunity of including Polygraph.info; about the opportunity of removing an excessively detailed list of works by IK; about the opportunity of removing Sich's comment on ad hominem attacks against IK; about excessive details on where "K. presented a paper, symposium, book chapter, etc."; and about the opportunity of removing Golinkin's view that "the Kiev government has been unable to provide a definitive explanation". IMO Adoring nanny's approach to the article was not "the winner takes all", and I am curious to know whether they agree with the removal of all sources in favour of IK's theory (regardless of their reliability) and the inclusion of only those sources that are against the theory. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhorg - it was already explained why - because there's a difference between the two sets of authors. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what difference @GizzyCatBella? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gitz6666 read this thread again maybe? It was already explained to you yesterday. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. First of all, you haven't said anything at all. If you have an opinion on what we're discussing about, then it would be nice to hear it, otherwise you could stop acting as a self-appointed referee and saying things like "It was already explained to you": you should rather say "I agree with MVBW" and/or "I agree with VM's arguments", and possibly add your own views to the conversation.
Secondly, nothing was explained by the two editors who dare to speak. The question remains: what is the difference? Does the difference lie in the point of view expressed by the two sets of authors - some against IK, other pro-IK? In that case, this would not be an argument at all but a petitio principii: the difference would be that the supperts are wrong and the critics are right, with no substantive argument supporting this claim.
Alternatively, the difference would be that one set of authors is authoritative and reliable, and the other is not. This may be Volunteer Marek's argument. However, if you compare the two sets of authors, it is obvious that the "supporting set" is far more authoritative:
  • on the one side, we have a former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and Professor at Princeton University, a Professor of Political Science at São Paulo University who was named as "Brazilian Intellectual of 2005" by the Unión Brasileña de Escritores and awarded the Order of Rio Branco, the Order of May, and the German Cross of Merit; we have an Emeritus Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent, a Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and New York University, an Emeritus Reader in Sociology at the University of Cambridge, and a research associate at the Freie Universität Berlin;
  • on the other side, we have a Professor at the Department of History & Classics, University of Alberta, three Ukrainian academics (at Kyiv and at the University of Calgary, one journalist from The Bulwark, and one "de-bunking" website from Voice of America.
So please, what was already explained yesterday? And by whom? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, some additional text with additional sources could be included, but this additional text must be meaningful, rather than promotional (promoting FRINGE in this case). "The paper was cited favorably [by 10 people listed]" is an obvious promotion in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. The argument above is not based on any difference between the two sets of authors, since you say It does not matter if these sources cover IK favorably or unfavorably. So when you say I think I have explained this already and when GCB says it was already explained why - because there's a difference between the two sets of authors you are referring to two different things.
  2. With regard to your argument. You are basically saying that we should not provide detailed information about the reception of IK's theory. This is an editorial choice. In principle, providing information on the reception of a scientific theory, a political ideal or any other cultural artefact is fully legitimate and informative: we do it all the time. For editorial reasons, however, we might conclude that it is UNDUE in this case: because the theory is not important enough or because it is too popular and widespread, because it is too recent, or because it is not specific of this author, or for any other reasons. However, if this is the case, then we must also remove references to the critics of the theory. Polygraph.info does not even mention IK and is interested in Stone's opinions. Kuzio only formulates ad hominem arguments (a political technologist (rather than an academic) who loves conspiracy theories) that are as good as (indeed less than) the support of Cohen, Sakwa and others. Why are we reporting Kuzio's views? The same applies to Serhiy Kvit: no substantive criticism of IK, just a label, "post-truth"; and to The Bulwark: Kremlin propagandists, with no supporting argument.
  3. So if we fallow your reasoning (no history of the reception; only sources that say anything of substance on the subject and only a few sources that provide a non-trivial critical analysis of his work), then we need to drop all these references - as I've tried to do, and you and VM reverted me. At the most, we could leave David R. Marples, but we need to report also his positive assessment of the theory: Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable" and "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones".
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My second objection was as follows: it was not clear that some of the people do support the false flag theory, rather than simply citing ("IK came to such and such conclusion"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, with regard to this second objection specify who are you referring to: who is not supporting the false flag theory? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already explained above and two other sections of talk why the text you cited above i.e. "The analysis in this paper was cited favourably..." should not be included in my opinion. If you suggest to include something different, please suggest specific text in new section and see if there will be a consensus to include.My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'm modifying the article now, so as to make it consistent with your notion that info on the reception of his ideas are UNDUE, and only substantive critical analysis of his work should be included. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, WP:NOCON exists. So it's not only me who need to see if there's a consensus to include the paragraph "The analysis in this paper was cited favourably..." , but it is also you and VM who need to see if there's a consensus to include the paragraph "Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by scholars":

In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gitz, this is nakedly transparent and sophomoric WP:POINT disruptive editing you're engaging inL "You won't let me include what I want so I will scream "no consensus" against including anything you want! Take that!". Volunteer Marek 01:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for slow response. Was taking an internet break last week. Some thoughts:

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to fix this accordingly. No objections from me except only one. First, we need to start such section from explaining what exactly he claimed in his "theory" as described in his multiple publications, not only in the first one. That should include "Georgian snipers". Then, we would include criticisms and other responses to his theory, including Polygraph and BBC references about "Georgian snipers" you noted in another section. If we do that, that would be not just "Snipers' Massacre" (his first work), but we would need a more general title, which is pretty much a false flag attack by people who then usurped the power in Ukraine, according to IK. That is how he described this himself, and that is how a number of reviewers named it. I can see only one problem: the "theory" does not provides much specifics, as typical for conspiracy theories, i.e. he does not provide any names (if someone has directed this false flag attack, then who?). My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As cited in the previous section IK said that their and other groups of the Maidan snipers, including the far-right-linked group, received orders, weapons, and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former Georgian government leaders and commanders to massacre both protesters and the police in order to stop a peaceful agreement that was to be signed by Yanukovych and Maidan leaders. So, he is saying that some unnamed "Maidan leaders" gave weapons and payments to the snipers to prevent "a peaceful agreement" between themselves and Yanukovich . My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2016-10-01). "Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation". European Politics and Society. 17 (4): 453–472. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. ISSN 2374-5118. S2CID 156830359.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Marples was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Sakwa, Richard (2014-12-18). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85773-804-2.
  4. ^ Lane, David (2016-10-01). "The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation". International Critical Thought. 6 (4): 623–644. doi:10.1080/21598282.2016.1242084. ISSN 2159-8282. S2CID 157373994.
  5. ^ Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2019). The World Disorder. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03204-3. ISBN 978-3-030-03203-6. S2CID 239319086.
  6. ^ Mandel, David (2016-01-02). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156X.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251.
  7. ^ Cohen, Stephen F. (2018-01-03). "Four Years of Ukraine and the Myths of Maidan". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-09-30.
  8. ^ Matlock, Jack (2022). "Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided" (PDF). Krasno Analysis. On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government's security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators.1 See Ivan Katchanovski, "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations," NYU Jordan Center News.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
  11. ^ Larsen, Poul Funder (2018-02-21). "Historisk massedrab i europæisk hovedstad er omgærdet af mystik". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). Retrieved 2022-12-15.

Ivan Katchanovski Maidan massacre papers were also criticized by other experts[edit]

Ivan Katchanovski Maidan massacre papers were also criticized by other experts. For example, his papers about Maidan massacre were also criticized by Taras Kuzio. This information was in the previous versions of the article. Why this information was removed? Prohoshka (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can see, Gitz is the only user on this talk page arguing for removal of Kuzio. I strongly think it is due. Would be good to get other views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As has already been pointed out in previous discussions, Kuzio makes no deep criticism of Katchanovski. Furthermore, I would like to point out Kuzio's Twitter profile,[53] where he shows in the header photo Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists fighters (I read in our Wikipedia article: "OUN members, in the German serive, took an active part in the genocide of Jews in Ukraine and Poland."), and sounds like a laudatory image. I think we should avoid using Kuzio for issues that specifically concern Ukraine. Mhorg (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure about "deep criticism", but Kuzio's political views are irrelevant to whether his opinion is noteworthy. He is professor at one of Ukraine's major universities, is widely published about Ukraine (his latest book is published by Routledge), is published and quoted in mainstream English-language RS media, and has had affiliations to very prestigious universities. He is therefore eminently usable for issues that specifically concern Ukraine, and that would include this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC) As Kuzio has a WP article, readers can see who he is there, and if there is an issue of partisanship, any opinions should of course be attributed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taras Kuzio just made deep cririsizm of Ivan Katchanovski publications about Maidan massacre in Ukraine in 2014 year. I can assume from your words that you did not read his deep cririsizm of Ivan Katchanovski papers conserning Maidan massacre. In this photo is shown all fighters for Ukraine. And this is a UPA fighter, not OUN.

--Prohoshka (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ivan Katchanovski opinion about the Maidan massacre mirror the same opinion of Putin and Russia about the Maidan massacre.[edit]

The Ivan Katchanovski opinion about the Maidan massacre mirror the same opinion of Putin and Russia about the Maidan massacre. This information is in the polygraph article. And scholar Taras Kuzio also wrote in his article that Ivan Katchanovski papers about Maidan Massacre reflect russian propaganda that Maidan Massacre was a false flag operation. Russia and Putin make allegation that the maidan leadership employed snipers who murdered maidan protesters. Wise2 (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mirrors" does a lot of work here. Unless there are reliable sources which make this connection, it's not relevant and should not be included. Alaexis¿question? 09:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm open to persuasion but I agree that this is at least close to synthesis: the sources do link them so it's not original research, but the sources say they express "the same theory", not that one took it from the other. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link is really tenuous [54]
There is no evidence that Katchanovski influenced Putin's views or vice versa, so I don't think that this belongs to this article. Putin's opinion can be included in the article about the events themselves but this is not the right place to discuss it. Alaexis¿question? 12:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The connection is made by the Polygraph article, almost accusing Katchanovski of being comparable to Putin. In substance, however, nothing is shown that connects these two people, and we should not report this in our article. Moreover, in the Polygraph article it is only reported that Katchanovski was quoting a source who spoke of these Georgian snipers. This is not his work, it was only a statement of someone else's thesis which was related to an affair he had dealt with in his research. If we write that for a retweet he is supporting a debunked story I think we're in a BLP vio. Mhorg (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read Ivan Katchanovski papers about the Maidan Massacre? He extensively relies and dwells on the Georgian snipers in his publications concerning the Maidan massacre in Ukraine in 2014 year.--Prohoshka (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population.
and the Polygraph gives this supporting link (it is important to clarify any possible misunderstanding; the linked article provides names of the alleged snipers, etc.). Just below, in next paragraph, the Polygraph article makes a reference (through a link to the statement by Stone about the theory/claim by Konchalovski): "Reporting from @I_Katchanovski & @27khv reveals that #Georgians were hired to shoot #Maidan protestors in #Ukraine." My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text in question does not say who influenced whom (Putin did not say who informed him about this); it only says that they support the same "theory", which they obviously do. The source linked Pu and IK together through the theory. That is what we reflect on this page. It does not mean that IK informed Pu directly. I assume he did not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@My very best wishes do you have some kind of link to Polygraph? You seemed to crop up specifically when that source was mentioned throughout this discussion page, and seemed to repeat points that were already discussed to the point of exhaustion of other editors. Are you aware that this is an organisation linked to the US government?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It only matters if the source qualify as WP:RS, and it appears that it does, as has been already explained by user BobFromBrockley at the top of thread Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski#Polygraph.info. Moreover, this is a "fact checking" source. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I ask why you yet again went out of your way to refuse to answer the questions put to you in good faith? What is your agenda here? Why do you argue the same points over and over again, as you continually exhaust other editors?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article talk page is not the best place for accusations of bad faith and conflict of interest. Please take these concerns to the appropriate noticeboard and let's keep this talk page civil. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)|}Reply[reply]

I support and endorse the edit made by My very best wishes on February 7, 2023 year: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1138040326 Wise2 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False claim and BLP violation[edit]

This article and talk page contain false claim that Ivan Katchanovski proposed the false-flag theory about Georgian snipers and that his theory was supported by Putin. The Polygraph article does not say anything like that about Katchanovski and his research. It only links to a retweet of his tweet about the Israeli documentary. This claim has to be removed since it is deliberately false and violates BLP. 152.206.221.12 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know if the claim is "false", it's clear that some of Katchanovski's hypotheses are... "adventurous", to say the least, but the source was not about Katchanovski and was linked to him only in the most marginal of ways. Being WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and about a BLP, it quite clearly doesn't belong in the article. I assume there should be no shortage of criticism of some of Katchanovski's claims out there, and of a better quality, anyway. As for the source, I have moved it to Oliver Stone, where it is a better fit. Ostalgia (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am pasting the deleted material here, for reference: According to fact-checking news website Polygraph.info, Katchanovski proposed a false flag theory that Georgian snipers were hired by Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors and this theory was cited by Oliver Stone and supported by Vladimir Putin in his interview to Stone.[1]
This has been extensively discussed up the page in more than one thread, and it is clear that there is no consensus for removal. I believe the consensus position is that articulated by My very best wishes above as follows: according to Polygraph [56],
Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population.
and the Polygraph gives this supporting link (it is important to clarify any possible misunderstanding; the linked article provides names of the alleged snipers, etc.). Just below, in next paragraph, the Polygraph article makes a reference (through a link to the statement by Stone about the theory/claim by Konchalovski): "Reporting from @I_Katchanovski & @27khv reveals that #Georgians were hired to shoot #Maidan protestors in #Ukraine." It might be more sensible to continue the discussion in that thread if there are any serious challenges to this consensus, rather than proliferate threads on the same topic.
If this was not a BLP, I would restore the deleted paragraph because deleting it goes against the established consensus, but for BLPs I believe we should proceed more cautiously.
I also take issue with IP's allegation that "this is deliberately false", as we should assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors and accusing us of deliberately inserting lies into WP is very serious. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact is that Katchanovski is mentioned only once in an embedded tweet in the Polygraph article and so we cannot use this source to state that Katchanovski "proposed a false flag theory." I suggest to include some scholarly criticism instead, for example by Taras Kuzio [57]. Alaexis¿question? 13:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentoned before, I'm not against the content per se, but the article was very tangentially linked to him and to add such a strong claim to a BLP based on that is completely undue. I would support adding other sources dealing with Katchanovski's ideas more specifically. I don't have time to check this specific source right now, and it seems Kuzio has been discussed here as having a "beef" with Katchanovski, but as long as the wording is careful I would not oppose it. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read the source now and I think it would be fair to add it. However, I think it might be the same discussed above, which had an IP (perhaps the same IP who started this section?) asking for Katchanovski's reply to be included. There also seems to have been a back-and-forth between a few users trying to more or less summarise who is for and who is against Katchanovski's views and so on. I wonder if I may have stepped into a minefield when I edited here for the first time... Do the both of you (namely Alaexis and Bob) believe it could be possible to summarise the views of critics and "supporters", so to speak, in a paragraph, and add it to the article? Yes, I am aware that the issue has been discussed before, but from what I can see, of the people involved, two are tbanned, another two plus one of these are involved in an ArbCom dispute, another has been banned as a sockpuppet and I believe that leaves us with a reasonably wieldy group to discuss these issues. Alternatively, if you believe consensus to be impossible, then I do not mind adding the Kuzio source as it is, although adding a line with Katchanovski's response could also be due for a BLP. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I rephrased it to reflect comments above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Echols, William; Yarst, Nik (2019-07-15). "Vladimir Putin Speaks with Oliver Stone: New Interview - Old False Claims". Polygraph.info. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

Katchanovski's opinions on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine are WP:UNDUE[edit]

Dr Katchanovksi is purportedly an academic, but all of the links in this paragraph are to opinion pieces. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. In the absence of any genuine academic output on the subject this entire section is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Nangaf (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this section should be restored
  1. In general, it's helpful for the reader to understand his position as regards to the current war.
  2. His prediction of the war is noteworthy as many other experts denied this possibility right up to February 24, 2022
  3. There is no prohibition against using opinion pieces citing well-known experts.
Some of the information can be deleted or moved to other articles (probably everything after the words "Prior to the war..."). Alaexis¿question? 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still mindful of WP:RECENT, but that's constructive, and if someone rewrote or substantially edited this section, I think it would be OK to remove the COI tag because most of the remaining material added by the unregistered Ontario accounts is in there. Nangaf (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think like Alaexis, this part me needs to be restored. There are good sources to keep and the text is consistent with the sources. Also, Katchanovski is much better known in these years since the invasion. His estimates and predictions carry some weight. Mhorg (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He also has a new paper out (see below) which undercuts my argument that it does not feature in his academic output. I'll self-revert. Nangaf (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the academic versus opinion pieces issue is relevant. But I think this section might risk RECENTISM and includes primary sources which are pretty non-noteworthy (Truthout, Canadian Dimension). I don't think predicting the war made him noteworthy as most experts said it was coming, If a reliable source noted he was unusually prescient, that would be noteworthy.. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had another crack at rewriting this section focusing on Katchanovski's explanation of the origins of the conflict rather than trying to adjudicate his predictions about was or was not about to happen. Nangaf (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Difficult to find consensus on this. Do we know if anybody else has cited or commented on his analysis of the war? Nangaf (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now, his view on this is cited in a single outdated news source (Christian Science Monitor), a year ago. This clearly shows it is not notable or anything new (same view was discussed by other authors in a lot more details in books). Hence my removal. But whatever. If you guys want to keep it... My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The passage about Ukraine being a client state is no longer in the article atm [58] (I did not restore it). Alaexis¿question? 06:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add new open-access peer-reviewed article and Maidan massacre trial and investigation "testimonies by the absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts" that corroborated Katchanovski findings[edit]

Add the new open-access peer-reviewed article and Maidan massacre trial and investigation "testimonies by the absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts" that corroborated Katchanovski findings.

The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts pointed unequivocally to the fact that the Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings. To date, however, due to the political sensitivity of these findings and cover-up, no one has been convicted for this massacre. Two online video compilations include brief relevant segments of testimonies of wounded protesters and prosecution witnesses at the trial and the investigation. The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations

Video Appendix A: Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Testimonies by 52 Wounded Maidan Protesters about Snipers in Maidan-Controlled Locations, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1XuVpWTaq0

Video Appendix B: Testimonies by Dozens of Prosecution Witnesses at the Maidan Massacre Trial & Investigation Concerning Snipers in Maidan-Controlled Locations, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aLmHPZfKU0

Photo Appendix 1. The statement by the far-right Svoboda party about taking the Hotel Ukraina under its control and guard before the Maidan massacre in Ukraine (Google translation), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369503642_Photo_Appendix_1_The_statement_by_the_far-right_Svoboda_party_about_taking_the_Hotel_Ukraina_under_its_control_and_guard_before_the_Maidan_massacre_in_Ukraine  2607:FEA8:BC60:E50:F80F:F330:4185:9677 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for requesting an edit through the talk page. I have added a brief summary based on a very quick reading of the abstract, which other editors may wish to amend. Nangaf (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a publication by Katchanovski. We cannot use publications by the subject, on a highly disputed topic, as a reliable and independent source about the subject. It should not be added, and more strongly per WP:BLPRS it should be removed without discussion if attempted to be added.
If there is reliably published and non-fringe commentary on this publication, we can consider adding that commentary as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't added it as a reliable and independent source on the topic: I have added it because this is a page about Katchanovski, and it is a reasonable primary source for his opinions on that topic. Nangaf (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your summary calls a published peer-reviewed journal article "a paper." It omits is findings and that they are based on the following evidence from the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine:
The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts pointed unequivocally to the fact that the Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings. To date, however, due to the political sensitivity of these findings and cover-up, no one has been convicted for this massacre.
This needs to be included in the summary in the article. 2607:FEA8:BC60:E50:99FB:9176:C9DB:92F7 (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right. I called it a paper. That's standard terminology, and I should know: I have published more than 80 of them in the academic literature.
Please stop with the special pleading, it is very tiresome. Nangaf (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You deliberately excluded that "the absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts" from the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in the peer-reviewed article corroborated studies by Katchanovski. You also systematically add negative content about Katchanovski and exclude or remove any favorable content and even neutral content concerning his peer-reviewed studies. In academia, this is considered fraud. 2607:FEA8:BC60:E50:99FB:9176:C9DB:92F7 (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog. Katchanovski is notable for silencing all of his critics on Twitter by removing their comments and blocking them: you seem similarly intolerant of discussion. Nangaf (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the coverage, Katchanovski might be notable only for his "false flag" theory of Maidan massacre. Hence we need some secondary RS that discuss his theory in depth, rather than just mentioning that such "theory" exists in passing (e.g. like here [59]). I can see only two such in depth sources: [60] and [61]. Am I missing some other RS? Both sources seem to carefully criticize his theory, while mentioning the lack of proper investigation of the massacre by Ukrainian authorities. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both those sources are cited. There is also the Kuzio review, which is also cited. I agree that essentially all the commentary on the false flag theory is negative. I also agree that this theory is his only claim to notability. I also agree that this article cites an excessive number of primary sources. Nangaf (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pruned away one primary source, which was a conference proceeding and probably less informative that the written sources. I haven't read any of the others, so I can't judge their relative merit -- so for the time being they are still all in there. Nangaf (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, indeed, this article by Kuzio also covers work by Katchanovski in depth and therefore should also be used. Yes, they are used already on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was certainly some redundancy in the primary sources, so I culled a couple of the lower-quality references, which I think gives slightly better balance. Nangaf (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marples on Katchanovski[edit]

@Nangaf as for this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Katchanovski&oldid=prev&diff=1172255984

I think it's clear from the context that we're talking about statements in response to IK's theses at the time they were made, but if you think it's appropriate to mention that this statement is from 2014, then that date needs to be added. In any case, there is no reason to remove Marples' opinion altogether. Marcelus (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you, I don't see why to remove that opinion of Marples. Besides, it is a statement with very important content. Mhorg (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that another editor has restored the content. I will concede the point, and at the suggestion of Marcelus I have edited the text very slightly to specify that Marples' comments were in relation to Katchanovski's 2014 seminar, so that readers can themselves infer the context. Nangaf (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just re-read what Marples had to say about Katchanovski's paper, and decided that the text was not an adequate reflection of his commentary. as Bobfrombrockley mentioned above, 90% of what Marples had to say was critical of Katchanovski, but the text actually included more positive statements than negative ones, giving undue weight to the (meagre) praise that Marples bestowed on the work. Accordingly I have reworked the text, which I think gives better balance at least as far as Marples is concerned. Nangaf (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Nangaf's reworked version is better. Making it seem as if Marples praised it more than he criticised would be deeply misleading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alleged confiscation of property[edit]

I'm not sure about this section. It might be too trivial and personal, and I couldn't find good sources, although some of the details are confirmed by a second blog post.[62] Nangaf (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those that have not seen the link: the source of the information is literally Katchanovski's Facebook page, repeated on a blog. There is a link to a Ukrainian news article that does not mention Katchanovski by name. Nangaf (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not seem trivial as an issue at all, on the contrary. If we are dealing with a question of repression of journalists, the matter is very serious. Mhorg (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If" is doing some work here. Katchanovski is not a journalist. And currently the only sources are those rephrasing Katchanvski's own words, so there is no independent verification that any of this happened, let alone that it happened for the reasons that he supposes. Nangaf (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prose should stay, subheading should be upmerged. We call it out with "alleged", but shouldn't just erase the event from this person's story. Folly Mox (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's noteworthy, I'm sure a reliable source will appear. Until then, we can't include it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Euvsdisinfo is not about Katchanovski, it must be removed[edit]

The text "The website EUvsDisinfo traces the claim directly to Katchanovski via Russian language sources" should be removed along with the source as the article used to debunk Katchanovski is not even about him but about a third person quoting an alleged non-existent human rights group (IGCP) that has nothing to do with Katchanovski. The author of the article is Anton Khodza (seems virtually unknown[63]) from "site.ua".[64] I also invite you to read Khodza's text, it is full of unprofessional epithets and terminology. Mhorg (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I am a little confused by your comment. The subject of the EUvsDisinfo page is Katchanovski's false flag theory, and the page itself has 4 links that all directly reference Katchanovski by name. Can you explain to me how you arrive at the conclusion that this is an irrelevant source? As for the Khodza article, that is only one of the linked sources referenced by the EUvsDisinfo page, but I agree it is not the highest quality of the sources because it is a blog post, so I have removed the citation. Nangaf (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Euvsdisinfo quotes only Anton Khodza to "debunk" Katchanovski, which is a very bad source for this matter and we have already removed it. To link Katchanovski to Khodza, Euvsdisinfo puts three links to websites that look like pro-Russian blogs. Two of which are offline and one online. Where would the debunking be? Mhorg (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I genuinely do not understand what your point is. Euvsdisinfo is a database of disinformation. The links are to Russian language sources of disinformation, all of which refer directly to Katchanovsi and his false-flag theory. All of the links are live. Khodza may not have been a good enough source for WP -- neither is the ukraine.ru link, for that matter -- but all of the sources were apparently good enough for the EU. The text never said anywhere that the EU "debunks" Katchanovski. What is clear is that the EU considers the theory to have been exploited by Russian disinformation. The fact that the theory appears on the Euvsdisinfo website is sufficient evidence for that! So what exactly are you objecting to? I am trying to accommodate your views, but is difficult to edit the page when you repeatedly delete the content. Please refrain from wholesale deletion of the material while it is under discussion, as this can be considered edit warring.Nangaf (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that we are talking about a WP:BLP we have to be very careful when writing that someone produces disinformation. I am not familiar with EUvsDisinfo but perhaps it could be WP:UNDUE if it treats these topics with such little care. Perhaps we could take the matter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Mhorg (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your most recent edit. Do you have any further suggestions for wording or refs? I don't wish to shut you down and take it straight to the BLP Noticeboard except as a last resort. I would just like to thrash out a consensus edit here on the Talk page if we can. I completely agree with you that we should not label Katchanovski as a propagandist, and my original wording was perhaps too close to that. Personally I think we are on solid ground saying that Katchanovski's work has been exploited by Russian propaganda and EUvsDisinfo is as good a source for that as any. (Taras Kuzio came pretty close to calling Katchanovksi a propagandist using the words "political technologist", but I think that is in itself WP:UNDUE given that Kuzio himself, if not a propagandist, has a very strong stance in favour of Ukrainian independence.) Nangaf (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kuzio vs Katchanovski

I've only briefly edited this page, mostly to remove what was pointed out as a potential BLPVIO, and I've been quite inactive in general for the past few months for professional reasons, so I've not been following this as much as I would've liked. While I don't think I'll be able to catch up with what happened during my absence, on skimming through the discussion I came across this comment and found the wording to be rather worrying. Specifically, I'm referring to the statement that Taras Kuzio came pretty close to calling Katchanovksi a propagandist using the words "political technologist", but I think that is in itself WP:UNDUE given that Kuzio himself, if not a propagandist, has a very strong stance in favour of Ukrainian independence. There's a fair bit to unpack here: 1) In opposing Katchanovski and Kuzio and saying that the latter stands for Ukrainian independence, this sentence seems to imply that Katchanovski is not in favour of Ukrainian independence, which is quite a strong allegation that I believe is not borne by the facts (and may inadvertently violate WP:BLPTALK). While there are a fair few Ukrainian and Ukrainian-born """academics""" who espouse views contrary to Ukrainian independence (or in favour of a rump Ukraine), I do not believe Katchanovski did or said anything to be lumped with that lot - that he is against the Ukrainian government does not mean he is against the Ukrainian state. 2) The idea that Kuzio's "very strong stance in favour of Ukrainian independence" puts him close to being a propagandist (as seems to be suggested) is dangerous. His stance on Ukrainian independence, if anything, is a common sense position that is also based on international law. If he were to promote false claims proposed by the Ukrainian government or any other government and/or entity then that would earn him such a label (see, for instance, these allegations by journalist Neil Hauer of Kuzio being "handled" by the Azerbaijani government, as well as the fact that he apparently had an article on Rolling Stone UK pulled from the online version of the magazine for carrying alleged Azerbaijani propaganda, both of which are, to my knowledge, only allegations and unrelated to Ukraine), but certainly not his position on Ukrainian independence, which is probably about the only thing on which he can agree with Katchanovski. I am almost sure that there's no ill intent behind your comments, but I hope you'll understand how that wording can seem... problematic.
More to the point of this article, Katchanovski himself (in response to Hauer, in fact) has levelled some serious accusations against Kuzio on social media as well, stating that Kuzio is paid far-right linked fraud. He headed propaganda outlet linked to OUN. His Twitter profile includes red & black flag of OUN & UPA, which collaborated with Nazi Germany & perpetrated mass murder of Jews, Poles, & Ukrainians. He admitted that he was covertly paid for articles by Fatherland party. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies did not renew his contract because of his defamation of scholars of Ukraine. We're not here to analyse whether the allegations are true or not (and I doubt we have the means, anyway), and just because Katchanovski "throws dirt" on Kuzio we should not automatically disregard the latter's points or vice-versa, but given that there's evident "beef" between them, I would suggest being very careful when using one to write about the other. I had previously been OK with using Kuzio extensively because I assumed he and Katchanovski were disagreeing in more academic terms, which could be simply solved by presenting Kuzio's criticism followed, if necessary, by Katchanovski's retort, but this another level of bad blood entirely.
I will now introduce a couple of minor unrelated edits that I believe are uncontroversial. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on what Ostalgia pointed out, both criticisms should be put on both articles, i.e. we should specify what Katchanovski thinks of Kuzio. Mhorg (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't go there unless it was published somewhere more... serious/reliable, otherwise we're bound to end up fishing social media allegations all day. I just think we should exercise caution when discussing the views of these two with regards to one another. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, Kuzio is relevant only in that he is an area expert who has commented directly on Katchanovski's work in good quality sources. The question is whether his views are out of line with the rest of the commentary. Nangaf (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We currently only mention Kuzio in a list of critics, footnoting a piece from 2014 and a piece from 2020. It appears any "beef" is later than that. It would be undue to cover the beef in either article, unless it is covered by solid RSs, but I think the way we use Kuzio now is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving forward...[edit]

Well that was fun, wasn't it? I was preparing a long-ass detailed reply when the sections in question were blanked. Before he outed himself as Katchanovski, I had entertained some of his requests to remove potentially libelous content which I felt were appropriate, and I also raised a point about the Kuzio-Katchanovski dispute transcending the usual boundaries of academia, so I find it particularly distasteful that he would just drop by and claim that he is being intentionally and maliciously defamed by the editors here.

I think we're in a bit of a pickle now -- on the one hand we have the subject of this article, who is clearly unfamiliar with core wiki policies (WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:LEGAL, WP:AGF, WP:COI...), posting an admittedly legitimate concern about the neutrality of the article, especially given the sensibility of the topic he works on (which is something I can relate to) and the fact that he claims to have faced persecution and prosecution in his home country for it. On the other, we have the fact that he dropped a list of 40+ sources which are now "tainted", i.e., if we add them it will look like we're doing so under outside pressure (and by the subject of the article, no less!). Furthermore, the majority of our coverage as well as the majority of the sources he provided deal with the current war in Ukraine, which means accommodating his suggestions would make the article even more lopsided than it is. With all this in mind, I propose the following remedies:

1) Trying to expand the sections *not* dealing with the war (bio, career, coverage of his previous scholarship).

2) Discussing (here) and settling on a handful of high profile, representative sources for the positive reception of his position, with a view to adding it to the main article.

3) Without necessarily removing Kuzio, finding a less controversial academic source on which to base our coverage of criticism of Katchanovski. [I'll note that Lourdes over at ANI is pointing out that in their view one of our sources for criticism is unacceptable, although I'm not sure I agree with their rationale]

We can start with 1) straight away, but I would prefer we did 2) and 3) on the talk page before introducing the edits. Once we've settled on something I do not mind making the edits myself and taking the flak that will come with that, after all, I'm already getting shit for removing BLP violations from this article anyway, so I could not care less if someone claims my editing ends up giving a more positive view of the subject than the previous version. Cheers Ostalgia (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good! Alaexis¿question? 07:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Kuzio source definitely seems like it could be improved upon. Clarity Press does seem like a nice group of people, and they do say they "review each manuscript", but this isn't a peer-reviewed source. The PhD dissertation I think falls down more on age than on document type. The PhD candidate likely performed a pretty thorough literature review to make the statement she did, but if it was one year after the fact, a decade ago, reception of the contentious idea amongst professionals in the field may very well have changed. Folly Mox (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting with approval that the Clarity Press publication is no longer cited in the article, and the 2016 dissertation is being cited in a wholly appropriate way. This may already have been the case yesterday when I posted the above; I had the article open in a separate tab and had not refreshed it recently. Apologies for any confusion on my part. Folly Mox (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the list of sources now restored by Alaexis, I think incorporating material from authors 2 to 6 could be good. It includes a Ukrainian scholar (Ishchenko) and academics from Western European and American universities. It also includes publications from 2016, 2018 and 2023, which gives us, I believe, a decent mix, as it includes opinions from before and after the 2022 war. There is also a case to be made about including Moniz Bandeira as it could be valuable to note how his work was received by scholars from the so-called "Global South". I would not include Sachs because, while a prominent voice and a recognisable name, he's not an expert on the topic or region so his opinion should carry less weight here (if we were talking about the Ukrainian economy, or even about funding for Ukraine, then maybe this latter point could be overlooked, but it is not the case). The same holds true for some other less prominent individuals in the list. Still, if anyone believes some of these guys are worth including, though, suggestions are welcome.
I would, however, definitely argue against including Kees van der Pijl, as his work seems to have veered into conspiranoia and fringe views that are beyond the pale. I do not believe we should give extra space to such people. Ostalgia (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jack F. Matlock Jr. is more of a diplomat than a scholar, so his reaction could be valuable, but maybe we already have enough. Agree re Sachs, van der Pijl and Glenn Diesen whose objectivity has been questioned. Alaexis¿question? 12:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matlock is a good call in order to include someone with relevant expertise and a different background. Let's wait to see if anyone else has any suggestions and then draft something to see if it's amenable to everyone. Ostalgia (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly recommend that editors considering the list of 40 sources look up the page where almost all of these sources have already been proposed and discussed. Almost all of them are bad sources for one reason or another: some are in red flagged publications, many are by complete non-experts, several are by extreme fringe conspiracy theorists, most are brief in passing mentions, several mention but don't endorse IK's theory or only endorse a small part of it. I can't really see any that are worth including. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should try to avoid both-sides content. This is a fringe theory, not accepted in mainstream academia. It has been repeated extensively in Russian propaganda channels, and is considered by the EU to be disinformation. The 40 or so tidbits gleaned from various sources by Katchanovski himself are almost exclusively from sources known to be sympathetic to Russia -- Sakwa and Cohen, for example, both regularly attended the Valdai Discussion Club. Katchanovski himself is an part time adjunct teacher with (as we have seen) a paranoid personality, whose scholarship has been criticized in harsh terms. I do not think we should assume that there are merely differences of opinion about his work. It is divisive precisely because it is a polemic rather than a work of genuine scholarship. Nangaf (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But here is the thing, it's not about both-sides-ism, but about the fact that we do not get to decide what is fringe or what is not, as that would be OR. I have not read Katchanovski's articles (nor do I intend to), nor have I read every article/book quoting him approvingly or critically, but if mainstream scholars from recognised institutions engage with these theories approvingly, then we should report on that, and if they disprove them or criticise them, then we should report on that as well. The individuals whose inclusions we're talking about are from Cambridge, the FUB, KCL, and a former US ambassador to the USSR and professor at Duke... I wowuld assume this is far from a majority of views, but it's also not what I would consider fringe. It would be a wholly different matter if all we could find in support of Katchanovski was Kees van der Pijl, Glenn Diesen and some guy on VKontakte.
I also find the argument that Kathanovski's position "is considered by the EU to be disinformation" problematic. What the EU, a political entity, decides to be disinformation or not is also none of our concern other than to state that they consider it as such. Do you imagine if people in .ru wiki had to dismiss every claim that the Russian government believes to be disinformation? I am not equating the EU with Putin's government, just pointing out that Wikipedia should not merely accept a political entity's position on a topic as gospel, especially if there are reputable academics taking it seriously. What I believe we should do is report on the criticism Katchanovski has received from fellow academics and reflect that his views are not in the majority, whether because he is actively criticised or by omission (i.e. if major works ignore him altogether). Cheers Ostalgia (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We absolutely do get to decide what is WP:FRINGE, that's why there is a policy on it. Nangaf (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We get to decide what's fringe on the basis of scholarly opinion, not on our own, on the basis of OR. If there are recognised academics from prominent institutions engaging with these theories, we can't simply decide that they're fringe and do away with it. Ostalgia (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Academics are engaging with it by saying it is a politically-motivated polemic rather than a work of scholarship (Marples), not accepted by the academic community (Channel-Justice), and a conspiracy theory (Kuzio). Nangaf (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...while, as we have seen, other academics have taken it seriously. Ostalgia (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said previously: let us not assume a false equivalence. If the large majority of commentary is critical, our role as editors is to ensure that the article reflects that. Nangaf (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...which has quite literally been the position from the start. From my first reply to you: What I believe we should do is report on the criticism Katchanovski has received from fellow academics and reflect that his views are not in the majority, whether because he is actively criticised or by omission (i.e. if major works ignore him altogether). Ostalgia (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, I'm glad that we are in agreement that appropriate selection of sources does not constitute OR. Nangaf (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was never up for debate. I would appreciate a less sardonic tone, especially when you could've saved me 40 minutes by reading more carefully. Cheers.
PS. I think it's in poor taste to sneak an AfD while there's discussion in the talk page about improving it, but perhaps it's for the best. I'll refrain from working on the article or posting here until that is resolved. Ostalgia (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your time is your own: nobody is making you spend it here. Nangaf (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert and re-addition of uncited material, now supported by references that don't support the claims[edit]

Fellow editors (and Lute88, Nangaf), please find below a few queries that I have with respect to re-insertion of material that I challenged as uncited:

The citation quoted[65] mentions he is a Ukrainian political scientist and not Ukrainian-Canadian. I am requesting for at least one reliable source that confirms the description provided, and alternatively to edit the description precisely as what is written in the source.
I notice that primary sources have been added to support this original research contention. If there is no independent reliable source, then I suggest removing this challenged statement, or providing an independent reliable source for the same.
I have two queries regarding this:
(a) What is the relevance of showcasing in this BLP the false flag theory mentions in Russian media? While it may have been mentioned in Russian media and American media such as New York Times, why is this inference being propagated here in this BLP? This seems to be a non-neutral negative agenda pushing statement to paint the BLP in a bad light. That is my strong opinion that we should remove this line immediately and not propagate a position that Ivan is a Russian actor, not unless multiple independent news sources have confirmed that he is a Russian actor.
(b) The sources used to support this contention are listed below with my queries:
Euvsdisinfo - On what ground is any editor claiming here that Euvsdisinfo is a reliable source to be included in this BLP? Where is the mention of Ivan? Why is this being used to propagate a negative attack OR view in this BLP?
Bulwark - This is a first-person opinion column written by a respected writer. It still remains an opinion column written in first person. This should not, in my opinion, be used for BLPs. What is the logic here?

I apologise in advance for any affronting statement above. As the subject of the article has raised a strong query and this topic has been at ANI, and as the notice at the top mentions clearly that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous", I am urgently requesting your eyes on the above issues. Thank you, Lourdes 06:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can only confirm that Euvsdisinfo's kind of verdict carries bad sources and they are not even centred on Katchanovski. I don't know if it is an EU-related website, but this topic has been treated badly. Mhorg (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lourdes I've marked Katchanovski's nationality as needing an appropriate citation. IIRC someone (likely Katchanovski himself) has attested to him having both Ukrainian and Canadian citizenship on this page.
I intend to respond your other points in detail but I'm holding off for now while the AfD is still ongoing. Nangaf (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Nangaf, much appreciated. I shall await the AfD verdict too. Warmly, Lourdes 08:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving the page post AfD[edit]

With a third AfD closed as no consensus, I believe we can move on to improving the page and, if possible, make it less around the subject's position on one specific topic (i.e. his theory regarding the anti-Yanukovych protests) and more about him (if someone wants to make a specific page for his whacky theories and/or wants to add them to another article, they can be my guest). As I suggested earlier, I believe there's a lot that can be reworked and we should look towards discussing major changes here rather than jumping straight into the article. I'm going to be a bit busy for the next week (maybe 2 weeks) but I'll keep an eye on this to give feedback and perhaps drop a suggestion or two of my own. The one exception I would make to this "discuss first" approach is the removal of the passage mentioned by Lourdes in her third point above as potentially libellous given that we're dealing with a BLP (I would not oppose adding to the main article about the protest or its victims, though, and I don't think Lourdes is objecting to that either). I'll remove it after posting this.

I would also like to point out that I've gotten the distinct impression that Katchanovski (who, as we found out, is well aware of this article and very much interested in how he's portrayed) has continued to follow our deliberations is consciously trying to influence our discussions and actions. For instance, in one recent interview he was described explicitly as "Ukrainian-Canadian" [66] (likely at his own prompting), one of the issues Lourdes asked to source better. This does not make it untrue, and it could well be just a timing coincidence, but it's not the only case. During the AfD discussion I argued that if there was one aspect of WP:NACADEMIC that Katchanvski fulfilled it was not his scholarly impact but criterion #7, namely [t]he person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Lo and behold: yesterday, after his latest round of interviews regarding the Yaroslav Hunka fiasco, he posted on his social media that [m]y tweets on this issue have over 6,000,000 views and are reported by more than 200 media in dozens of countries. It is not often that academic research on conflicts in #Ukraine has such impact (emphasis added).[67] The wording is almost too similar to be a coincidence. Once again, could be just paranoia on my end, and even if I'm right there's not much to do, but I believe we should be careful during our discussions so as not to end up asking questions here that Katchanovski will try to answer "IRL" in order to force our hand. Let's see if we can end up with a decent article. Ostalgia (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not over-think this. Him saying that his research has had a great impact doesn't matter at all - it's not something we would add to the article and it doesn't say anything about his notability, if, heaven forbid, the article is nominated for deletion again.
Happy to collaborate on reworking the article! Alaexis¿question? 11:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Mhorg for adding the source to the Ukrainian-Canadian claim, I think it's a pretty straightforward edit but one that helps improve the article a bit. I'm wondering if the listed "research interests" on his University of Ottawa profile could be used to source our claims about his interests instead of linking to his publications. It would still be primary but it wouldn't be OR, and it strikes me as a largely uncontroversial issue that is unlikely to be challenged. Opinions? Ostalgia (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is not a problem to report that information, it is nothing controversial. Mhorg (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, first suggestion. I propose the following modifications to the lead:

Ivan Katchanovski (Ukrainian: Іван Гнатович Качановський, romanized: Ivan Hnatovych Kachanovskyi; born 11 September 1967) is a Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist who teaches at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. Katchanovski's research is focused on public opinion, armed conflicts, political communication, political culture, society and ideology, comparative politics, and Ukrainian studies.

The source for the latter sentence would be his university profile. Not the best, but better than the mix of OR and synth that is our current version. While we're at it, I'd also add Ukrainian as a nationality in the infobox. Comments, ideas, suggestions?

Katchanovski was quoted by many media in the Yaroslav Hunka affair[edit]

Perhaps something should be written about this in the article?[68] Mhorg (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While in principle I agree that something could be added, since he did get a fair bit of media coverage because of it, I think itought to be very brief as it's not something he's worked on extensively, in all honesty. Maybe we should wait until the waters settle down to see what exactly happens with the Hunka article (which probably should be reworked into something more general like "xyz Canadian parliament scandal") as well. Just my opinion. Ostalgia (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ivan Katchanovski, a Ukrainian-Canadian professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, burst that bubble shortly thereafter. Within hours, Katchanovski was tweeting out photos and translated text that clearly identified Hunka as a member of the 14th Waffen Grenadier (Galicia) Division..." (Source: Canada’s top general needs to apologize for honouring a Nazi SS soldier, The Hill Times, October 2, 2023) --91.54.28.106 (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned, we probably will add some of this. I'll be a bit freer from later on until Monday, so I'll try to come up with a few suggestions shortly. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False Flag Fantasies in Ukraine[edit]

A conspiracy theory about the 2014 Maidan Revolution gets demolished—but refuses to disappear. Read the full article: https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/false-flag-fantasies-in-ukraine , https://archive.ph/gFj2O . I assume the article should be included in the Wikipedia article about Ivan Katchanovski.Prohoshka (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, this is new article by Cathy Young that continue her previous article already included on the page. Yes, sure, it can be used here. This 2nd article by Cathy Young has described and criticized the theory by K. in a lot more detail. More should be included to this page (one should make a "Support and criticism" section for his "theory"), but I do not have much time. I only quickly looked because someone recently brought my attention to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you place the second link on this article in the Wikipedia article? Wise2 (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome to include it yourself. But I can not understand what his theory actually claims, and what data it is based on. According to the article by Young, he asserted that “the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power”. OK. Who "rationally planned" the operation, according to him? I mean the names. Who carried it out "with a goal of the overthrow of the government", according to him? He also "suggests that more investigation is needed into the possible role of the United States." Why? What he is actually talking about?
Now, the article by Young (consistent with other sources) says: By contrast, the Sviatoshyn District Court verdict in which Katchanovski now finds a reason to rejoice concludes that 40 of the 48 dead protesters were killed by Berkut, while in eight cases other perpetrators cannot be ruled out due to lack of evidence. In part, the court relied on the fact that shots were fired from locations that were not controlled by Berkut at the time, such as the Ukraina Hotel and its vicinity. That hotel figures prominently in Katchanovski’s conspiracy theory as a sniper-infested stronghold of the Euromaidan protesters—though his critics argue that it’s highly unlikely the massive hotel and the entire area around it were fully under the control of the protesters in a volatile and chaotic situation. Is that all evidence that he has, i.e. some shots were fired from that hotel? If so, that fact says absolutely nothing about any specific collusion, which is at the heart of the conspiracy theory. And who were the conspirators (the names)?
Young says about it the following: The eight protester deaths that cannot be conclusively attributed to Berkut could have any number of explanations, from “friendly fire” in the pandemonium to shots fired by plainclothes cops. Even the presence of Russian operatives has not been “disproved” as Katchanovski asserts: The presiding judge, Serhiy Dyachuk, has told the press that “it’s theoretically possible, but there is no proof.” Blaming Russian agents on the basis of such speculation would, of course, be misleading and irresponsible. But that goes double for Katchanovski’s own dramatic leaps of bad faith: from the finding that eight of the 48 slain protesters may have been shot by someone other than Berkut to “false flag operation.”
P.S. Current version of the page says the following "Katchanovski argued that the Revolution of Dignity resulted from a massacre organised by the Euromaidan protestors' own leadership. He based this on information from video footage,...". I understand this is incorrect. What follows from the "video footage,..." is that some shots were probably fired from the hotel. Who fired these shots and why remains unknown. My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not all editors can edit this article as the article is under the special protection from vandalism, so not everyone can include this link. Yes, indeed some shot were fired from the Hotel Ukraina by unidentified shooters, but, according to the verdict, the absolute majority of Maidan protesters were killed and wounded by the government Berkut police from the government controlled locations. Prohoshka (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't this the same logic ufologists use? "We can explain most cases, but there is a part we cannot explain, and those are probably aliens/protesters". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, absolutely. In addition, as the good secondary source says, Katchanovky misinterpreted the decision by the court by saying that the shots were fired from the hotel (that is what his "theory" is based on), while the court found that they were made from the direction of the hotel. This is very important to include. I just did, but my edit was reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was saying one thing in a publication, but later was saying something rather different, etc. And there was no real proofs of his claims, as some of the RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski was criticized by others[edit]

Ivan Katchanovski was criticized by Bohdan Harasymiw https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/23/the-snipers-massacre-in-kyiv-katchanovski-marples/ , Ian Rons https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/17/a-load-of-ballistics/ , and Myklailo Martynenko http://uamoderna.com/blogy/martynenko/answer-katchanovski/ . I suggest that this information must be included in the Wikipedia article.Prohoshka (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First source (Marples) - it repeats something already on the page. Second source (The Daily Sceptic) is probably not a good RS. Third source - seems to be a blog/opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume the name of Bohdan Harasymiw who is an academic must be included. Myklailo Martynenko is a historian. You can google their names. Prohoshka (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You or anyone else is welcome to contribute here yourself. Please do. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I told you the previous section, not all editors can edit this article as the article is under the special protection from vandalism, so not everyone can include this link. Only the editors with more than 500 total Wikipedia edits can edit this protected article. I also can not edit this article so far as my total Wikipedia edits are far below 500 total Wikipedia editsWikipedia:Protection policy. Sorry.Prohoshka (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia decides reliability not based on the credentials of people who are quoted in a source, but on the source itself. See WP:RS. MBW's "first source... second source... third source" analysis is spot on. Daily Sceptic is crap, blogs are unuseable. Only the first is even debateable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One should also avoid using their own translations of primary sources if possible. Moreover, « PERSON_1770 » received fatal gunshot wounds to the torso (chest and abdomen) from the hotel « INFORMATION_161 » and the area in front of it Is it "and" or "or"? Does it mean that the person was simultaneously shot by two shooters from two different positions? My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verdict on Maidan snipers[edit]

These are some of the parts in Ukrainian language of the verdict[69](archived) saying that some bullets that killed\wounded the protesters came from the direction of the hotel, which was not under police control. Please, if you find other parts or if there are corrections in the translation, could you mark them down?

English: Within the framework of this trial, no evidence of the involvement of law enforcement officers, let alone the accused, in the injury of the victim has been established. The gunshot wound was inflicted on PERSON_1852 from the direction of the Hotel 'Ukraine', i.e. from the territory that was not controlled by law enforcement at the time. The shot was aimed at a crowd of people.
English: Within the framework of this trial, no admissible evidence of the infliction of such wounds on the victim by the accused was obtained. Moreover, PERSON_1770 received fatal gunshot wounds to the torso (chest and abdomen) from the hotel « INFORMATION_161 » and the area in front of it, which were not under the control of law enforcement agencies, and therefore the involvement of the accused and RRF fighters in them, and as a result, the victim's death, is excluded.--Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comments:
  1. (general) The source you are citing is not on the subject of this page. It does not mention Katchanovski anywhere, unlike the article by Young which is specifically about Katchanovski. I would rather not use it at all, especially since it is WP:PRIMARY on a foreign language.
  2. First fragment of the text. "the victim". Is it PERSON_1852? Actually, looking at the text, this is apparently "PERSON_489" who was described before ("the" victim). This is misleading and therefore should not be included.
  3. 2nd fragment. This is indeed an incorrect translation. Google translate: "Within the scope of this court proceeding, admissible data on the infliction of such injuries on the victim was not obtained by the accused. Moreover, fatal gunshot wounds to the torso (chest and abdomen) were received by PERSON_1770 from the side of the hotel "INFORMATION_161" and the area in front of it, which were not under the control of law enforcement agencies, and hence the involvement of the accused and RSP fighters in them, and as a result, the death of the victim , is excluded." It says: "from the side ("з боку") of the hotel", i.e. from the direction of the hotel, not "from hotel". In fact, "з боку" directly says it was NOT from the hotel.
  4. Finally, we do not need this long footnote translation. It is consistent with the secondary sources (after correct translation) and adds nothing to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing controversial about reporting a translation of an official verdict, moreover, if it goes to support a factual part that we find in the text of the article: that some of the shots actually came from the direction of the hotel, which was not under the control of the Berkuts. Mhorg (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statements are already supported by multiple secondary RS. This long personal translation of the primary court document does not provide any clarity. This is a duplicate content (at best) or confusing (at worst) - see above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with MVBW, the secondary sources are preferable. Nangaf (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not talking about using primary sources alone or primary sources instead of secondary sources. This is additional material that confirms what is said in the secondary sources. It gives a way to read the verdict precisely. Mhorg (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, I am in favour of using both primary and secondary sources where possible, but in this case I don't understand the argument for including the primary sources as they don't mention the subject of the article. This would belong in an article about the case, but not about the theory, otherwise we are in WP:SYNTH territory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fraudulent misrepresentation of Maidan massacre trial verdict by Wikipedia editors in my biographical Wikipedia article and opinion pieces by Cathy Young that they deliberately quote[edit]

The Maidan massacre trial verdict in Ukraine confirms my academic studies findings that many Maidan activists were killed and wounded and BBC and ARD TV journalists were shot not by Berkut or other law enforcement but by snipers in the "activists-controlled" Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations. It specifically states that this hotel was controlled by Maidan activists, that an armed Maidan group was filmed in this hotel and was shooting from it. The verdict also states that there was no Russian involvement in the massacre and that there were no massacre orders from Yanukovych or his ministers. In her opinion pieces in a partisan neoconservative site on Substack, Cathy Young misrepresented the verdict, falsely claimed that it found the Berkut police responsible for killings 40 out of 48 protesters, and denied and openly whitewashed existence of Maidan snipers and the far-right involvement in the Maidan massacre as a “conspiracy theory.”

Maidan Massacre Trial Verdict Selected Excerpts Confirming False-Flag Massacre (English Google Translation) [70]https://www.academia.edu/109357708/Maidan_Massacre_Trial_Verdict_Selected_Excerpts_Confirming_False_Flag_Massacre_English_Google_Translation_

Ivan Katchanovski 174.92.47.171 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia editors deliberately include a few attack opinion pieces & omit over 100 academic and media publications by scholars, other experts & journalists who wrote favorably about my Maidan massacre studies[edit]

Wikipedia editors deliberately include a few attack opinion pieces & omit over 100 academic and media publications by scholars, other experts & journalists who wrote favorably about my Maidan massacre studies. The number of such scholars, other experts and journalists, who accepted the findings of these studies or wrote positively about them in their academic and media publications, exceeds dozens of times a few negative opinion pieces, which were largely politically motivated, ad hominem, based on false claims, and appeared in blogs or Substack of the neo-con opinion website.

Over 50 scholars & other experts, who wrote favorably about my Maidan massacre studies in academic and media publications include David Lane (Cambridge University), Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University), Jack Matlock (Duke University and former US Ambassador to Soviet Union), Richard Sakwa (University of Kent), Stephen F. Cohen (New York University), Anatol Lieven (Quincy Institute), Volodymyr Ishchenko (Free University of Berlin), Nicolai Petro (University of Rhode Island), Ray Taras (Tulane University), Suzanne Loftus (Quincy Institute), Oliver Boyd-Barrett (Bowling Green State University), Gordon Hahn (Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies), Glenn Diesen (University of South-Eastern Norway), Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (University of Brasília), David Mandel (UQAM), Michael Dunford (University of Sussex), Dieter Segert (University of Vienna), Greg Simons (Uppsala University), Mikhail Molchanov (University of Victoria), J. L. Black (Carleton University), Asier Blas Mendoza (University of the Basque Country), Jacques Sapir (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), John Ryan (University of Winnipeg), Samir Saul (University of Montreal), Michel Seymour (University of Montreal), John Foster (former Canadian diplomat and World Bank official), Alfred de Zayas (former UN Independent Expert), and many others. [71]https://www.academia.edu/112567062/Favorable_Quotes_Citations_by_Over_50_Scholars_and_Other_Experts_Concerning_Ivan_Katchanovskis_Maidan_Massacre_Studies

Ivan Katchanovski 174.92.47.171 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia article deliberate excludes evidence used in my Maidan massacre studies & that they are published as 3 peer-reviewed journal articles[edit]

The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts pointed unequivocally to the fact that the Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings. The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 2 (2023) [72]https://brill.com/view/journals/rupo/8/2/article-p181_5.xml

Content analysis of synchronized videos, testimonies by several hundred witnesses, confessions by 14 self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, and bullet hole locations show that both the police and protesters were massacred by Maidan snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas. Content analysis of synchronized videos revealed that the specific time and direction of shooting by Berkut policemen, who were charged with the massacre, did not coincide with the killing of specific protesters. Testimonies by the absolute majority of wounded protesters and some 100 witnesses and forensic examinations by ballistic and medical experts for the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine corroborate this. The “snipers’ massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine, Cogent Social Sciences 9(2) [73]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2023.2269685

This study analyzes various data sources, such as online live streams and TV broadcasts, videos, broadcasts of the Maidan massacre trials, the database of court decisions in Ukraine, media reports, and field research on the Maidan. The findings reveal that radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations had significant but minority representation among the Maidan leadership and protesters. However, the analysis shows that the far-right organizations and football ultras played a key role in political violence such as attempting to seize the presidential administration and the parliament. It reveals involvement of the Right Sector in violent clashes with the Berkut special police force during the highly publicized dispersal of Maidan protesters on November 30, 2013. The Right Sector and Svoboda had crucial roles in the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government, in particular, in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police. The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine in: Journal of Labor and Society Volume 23 Issue 1 (2020) [74]https://brill.com/view/journals/jlso/23/1/article-p5_2.xml 174.92.47.171 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia editors turned my biographical article into attack page in retaliation for my academic studies mentioning their whitewashing of far-right in Ukraine[edit]

Wise2 (Prohoshka) uses my biographical article to attack me in retaliation for my 2021 conference paper and its published peer-reviewed article version which mentioned his inauthentic far-right Svoboda-linked campaign of whitewashing the far-right Svoboda and Right Sector involvement in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police & the far-right OUN involvement in the Lviv Pogrom in Nazi-occupied Lviv & propagating “scientific anti-Semitism.” Prohoshka is a single-purpose account used by Wise2 to attack me on my Wikipedia page.

My Very Best Wishes, Nangaf, and Bobfrombrockley also used my biographical article to attack me right after Wise2 ((Prohoshka) notified them on their talk pages that my peer-reviewed article mentioned their deliberate misrepresentation of the Maidan massacre and whitewashing the involvement of the far-right in this massacre, whitewashing the contemporary and historical far-right in Ukraine, including open neo-Nazi organizations and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, their collaboration with Nazi Germany, their ideology and leaders, their “Glory to Ukraine” greeting, and their involvement in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Ukrainians. My Very Best Wishes, whom my peer-reviewed article also mentioned as identified by the Grabowski & Klein article as involved in the Wikipedia’s intentional distortion of the Holocaust in Poland, retaliated against me by immediately posting false claims about the Maidan massacre verdict, my academic studies of this massacre, and deleting my predictions of the Russia-Ukraine war. 174.92.47.171 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NPA.-Aristophile (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories