File talk:Fake Berkut.jpg

Terminology
On the caption dispute: Petri restored and said "If you disagree on the issue, take it to the comments." Current caption: "Berkut policemen with assault rifles claimed by Yanukovitch supporters to be Right Sector militants in disguise." That's certainly a claim you want to be careful with. You could make a circumstantial case. I don't know how good the one is. But I liked the previous caption best: "Men with assault rifles claimed by Yanukovitch supporters to be Right Sector militants in disguise and by most others to be Berkut policemen." Modification: "some Yanukovitch supporters." Saying they are police is leading, in a direction I suspect (from ignorance + common sense) is more likely correct, but maybe not, and we're question-askers. The previous caption to the one I like with "masked men" is leading. Faces are obscured, and that's a fact to note, and allows fakery, but the helmet is not suspicious. So in a short caption, best left out. --Caustic Logic (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am 100% sure these are real Berkut, see the F***ing video.
 * On this wiki we follow Wikipedia protocol on discussions. The photo and the comment was on the talk page and part of my comment. Protocol says you do not mess with other peoples comments. If it was in article space, then you would be free to edit it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I will see the video, but as I said (below), no 100% for me. Maybe 99%. I do prefer the version I prefer for the reasons given, but it's your comment. I guess a picture and caption makes it seem like something else. If it were, and ACLOS was saying this our take, then all this would matter. Otherwise, we should leave reverted to what you meant to say. --Caustic Logic (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you make a comment, sign it. The caption is not signed and contains your opinion. My version was neutral after I deleted the "masked". Sign the caption or restore the neutral version, please. --CE (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But maybe just it being within the comment covers the issue? Signed or not, we know by now that's his comment and reading. Going to watch "the F***ing video" now. Soon, we agree on something, lighten up, group hug? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Fakery Case
They sure have been stealing police uniforms and gear, if often torn and damaged. Apparent police in full gear cannot be proof of anything. This will should be a zone free of 100% certainties. A good spot for details and consideration might be the spot below. I may sit it out entirely, I don't mean to get too into this stuff. --Caustic Logic (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The original source (Truth About Situation in Ukraine, Facebook) claims fakery with this explanation:
 * The militants of the Right Sector, militarised extremist wing of the opposition's national party, are trying to impose as law reinforcement officers. The black SWAT uniforms are not used by Berkut division of police. The AK model has been removed from the law reinforcement forces awhile ago. Light boots are not worn by Berkut as well as the ski goggles. Another attempt of opposition to discredit the police force and justify their crimes committed for the benefit of US and EU masters.

(Interestingly, this doesn't even pop up in a Google search - instead you can find this re-posting at White People World Wide and another white power Facebook page. The one is shared with no comment added. Apparently they find the whole claim, bad English and all, rather amusing.)

If there's a good case for this, it would ideally include referenced visual supports, or at least more thorough explanation, circumstantial clues in what they do/how they act, etc. If such exists, I won't be looking for it, but if someone else does, bring it here. Would be interesting if true. --Caustic Logic (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the video - I'm not sure which. The Ukraine page links apparently to this video from radio Svoboda? It's not the exact scene at all, but same concept. Yellow armbands, uniforms, making the government "look bad" by shooting. They look fine. I don't know what they're shooting, in this flash mob coup. All clues in how they act suggest real police doing their job. The photo looked the same, the video added makes me think this fakery case is not going to pan out well. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, after seeing more, I can say the image we started with, and all the many ones at the same scene, were at the October Palace, up until 12:22 or so. The 41-minute video shows the strange attack on them, about 4-6:00 in, fireworks surely to mask gunfire. They all march away briskly to the south at this time. After that, this place was insurgent held and used as another field clinic, except the part that's on fire. The palace has sniper bullets stuck in its columns. Some of their wounded or dead were dragged away, leaving trails of blood. Citations, schmitations. In due time. Shortly after, the real Berkut were chased from another front line even further south. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actual Fake Berkut?
Was that above story sown to confuse a real allegation someone half-expected? The Ukrainian videos I've seen here show men who look shady to me, but I can't tell what they're saying. The same type can be seen in this BBC video, about 3:00 in. That's ostensibly someone filming actual Berkut, with mismatching uniforms and helmets, random backpacks, and all different kinds of oddball "sniper rifles." I don't really see what they're doing except letting it seem like the snipers are running around everywhere, not just pinned down and fleeing as the totally real ones usually were. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)