Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes

This article is 100% lies and propaganda

There is almost no truth to this article. As a Ukrainian, it is deeply saddening that even Wikipedia, a source most people would like to believe is free of bias, is in reality one of the most biased and least truthful of them all, thanks to a small group of editors who intentional cover up what is really going on.

First of all, the people who were tortured and murdered in the House of Trade Unions weren't "pro-Russian activists", they were trade unionists and leftists protesting against the violent repression of left-wing organizations and political parties by the unelected Yatsenyuk regime. All of them were Ukrainian citizens, not Russians. There is absolutely no doubt as to how the fire started. Every single video of the events in Odessa show the House of Trade Unions being pelted with molotov cocktails by right-wing radicals. People who tried to escape were dismembered, beaten, or shot. Children and a pregnant women were among those tortured and murdered, and the survivors were arrested by the police.

Video of the event in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmkogdQAMvo

Very sad and disheartening that a self-proclaimed Marxist (RCGloucster) is covering up the brutal torture and murder of unarmed leftists and their families by far-right extremists, just for their political views. Don't be surprised when the same thing happens to you, my friend!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.113.89 (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored a link to a Germany documentary with English subtitles about the massacre so that people can see with their own eyes what happened, instead of having to rely on the nihilistic nonsense in this article. – Herzen (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to agitate and spin on behalf of a particular point of view. The fact that you're explicitly admitting that you're doing this for POV purposes just makes it worse; you KNOW you're behaving disruptively but chose to do so anyway. See WP:POINT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Тhis article is unacceptable. I'll just show two mistakes: the first is about the links. The information in the references in Russian language does not correspond to information in this wiki article.
  • Quote from this wiki article: "According to Ukrainian government reports, a bus of pro-Russian separatists was detained while trying to enter the city; the group aboard was immediately released into the city on the order of a high ranking police official".

BUT! There is another information in this link УНИАН: just look in Russian text from UNIAN "Подобное заявление разместил и координатор движения Информационое Сопротивление Дмитрий Тымчук. "Одесские правоохранители показали себя с худшей стороны. Всего один пример. По нашим данным, на въезде в Одессу был задержан автобус с «колорадами»...". And the translation: "Dmitry Tymchuk, coordinator of Information Resistance posted: "Odessa law enforcement officers showed their worst side. Just one example. According to our data, at the entrance to Odessa was arrested a bus with" Colorado "...". Maybe FB post of Dmitry Tymchuk and "According to Ukrainian government reports" is not the same? I try to edit this mistake for 2 times in this article, but it was deleted! This is just Facebook post of Dmitry Tymchuk, he is a journalist, he is not a minister, not the mayor, he wrote only about his own information, and it is not "According to Ukrainian government reports"! Moreover, there is no information about the arrest of " Colorado "bus in Ukrainian government reports at all! You don't believe me? Just try to to check!

• • The second mistake. Casualties

Deaths from euromaidan side: 6[12] Deaths from anti-maidan 42[13] Are you kidding me? 6 Deaths are all Deaths in clashes on Grecheskaya Street! From this 6 Deaths 2 from euromaidan side (Birukov and Ivanov) and 4 from anti-maidan side (Jaworski, Petrov, Zhulkov, Losinsky). I also add this information in article, but it was deleted! So guys: Deaths from euromaidan side: 2 Deaths from anti-maidan 46 Whoever wrote this article and the one who removes my edits do not know the elementary facts about the May 2 in Odessa! if you do do not correct this 2 mistakes in the article, I will address with a request to remove this article. I see other mistakes in article,and you removed my 2 corrections without any reason...or may be your reason is to lie! Members Ymblanter, Bobrayner, NeilN deleted my edits just cause they want!!!Tribunalcomes77 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

• • Hello! Thank you for correcting information about deaths. And now about Tymchuk and Nimirovsky! Dear Ymblanter! Especially for you I have prepared a translation UNIAN's article! Please read carefully! Nemirovsky (Governor) did not say anything about the bus! Tymchuk (journalist) made the statement about "Colorado" bus. Translation of the article: "The Governor of Odessa said the militia was responsible for deaths. Today's victims in Odessa could have been avoided, the governor of Odessa oblast believes. On his page in Facebook, the governor of Odessa said: "Today's victims in Odessa could have been avoided. To do this, security-service agents should not have sold their Motherland and their conscience and had to keep the oath to the Ukrainian people. If the militia performed the requirements of the authorities of the region instead of being engaged in diplomacy, everything would have been in a different way today. But they, as always before, had cared about their own comfort rather than about the country. Shame," said the chief of the state administration of the region. An analogous statement was also made by Dmitry Tymchuk, the coordinator of the Information Resistance movement. "The Odessa police officers showed their worst. Only one example. According to our information, a bus with pro-Russia activists was stopped at an entry to Odessa. These people were given to the local militia. But a very high head of the city militia ordered to let them go... at once. Competent bodies are now dealing with this militia chief but the fact itself is indicative," wrote Tymchuk." The journalist who respects his readers would never use the word "Colorado". Tymchuk propagandist and he uses the term "Koloradi" (beetles) to describe the pro-Russian activists. But there is no information in public reports about the fact that "Colorado" bus had been detained. I propose in this case, to use the words of Nimirovsky about bad police work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribunalcomes77 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Dear RGloucester! I know you was nominated with the article "Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RGloucester.

Please tell me why you deleted the supplement with surnames of the killed men on Grecheskaya Street? You are such a great expert in the Ukrainian issue and you edit this article too! But you don't correct the big mistake in number of deaths before I came and now you delete the correction with surnames! Why? Also you deleted the information from Human Rights Watch: "Anti-maidan activists has been blocked in Afina shopping centre and 47 of them were arrested by the police". Some actions near Afina are described in this wiki article: "Some shots were fired from the roof top of the Afina shopping centre to shoot down at the crowds". Why the the supplement from Human Rights Watch is bad? Or you want to show incomplete information? May be it is better not write about the actions that occurred near Athens at all, rather than write about start and don't write about the end. Tribunalcomes77 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Pro-unitarists surround and throw petrol bombs into the Building of Syndicates

There is the video on youtube, coming from surveillance camera:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgGWdoDRQE

This video shows clearly who started the fire. Pro-unionists burned pro-federalist camp, surrounded the Building of Syndicates and then started throwing petrol-bombs into the windows. Why the hell it doesn't even deserve to be mentionned on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.2.66.159 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2 May 2014 Odessa clashes → May 2014 Odessa clashes – The previous RM was closed as removing "2 May" from 2014 Odessa clashes. As a result, the article was broadened. Then it was split into a newer article and the same article dealing with May protests in Odessa. I still think a "2" is unnecessary to exactly insert in order to search for this article. Some or many articles that deal with one-day events do not use an exact date, unlike September 11 attacks. I tried asking others to split the article up, but no one responded. Therefore, I'm sure that the title change won't affect the article itself. --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Clashes described in this article only took place on 2 May 2014, not on any other day. The proposed title is imprecise, and incorrect. It implies an article scope of "May", when the article scope is only "2 May". We must be WP:PRECISE. There were no "May protests in Odessa", so the nominator is entirely incorrect. There were only the 2 May clashes. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The 2014 Odessa clashes#2 May city centre clashes section describes 2 May events and also continuation and/or related events during 3 May to 4 May or 5 May. And the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Aftermath subsection is within "Events" section so seems to describe the 3-May to 5-May events as events that are part of the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. While "Investigation" section goes on to later events/activities outside the scope of the 2 May clashes event itself. I am not familiar with this material, only noticed mention of this at wp:ANI. But it kinda seems to me that it's awkward to limit the definition of the "clashes" (and the name of the article) to just what happened on 2 May and not 3 May-5 May. "May 2014 Odessa clashes" avoids that awkwardness. It doesn't happen to bother me that the reader arrives and would immediately be informed that the scope of events to be covered are just the 2 May events and other events in the immediate aftermath of 2 May. Article titles can be approximate, and often need to be approximate to avoid being too long. I won't "vote" here because I don't understand the overall context and what might be balancing considerations. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Those events are merely the aftermath, and are not "clashes", strictly speaking. It is no different than the "aftermath" of the 11th September attacks. This article is only about 2 May. It is unacceptable to allow such a vague title. Article titles cannot approximate. They need to be exact. They must define the scope of the article. The scope of the article is 2 May 2014, and it will remain so for eternity. If you want to write a new article on the non-existent "3 May clashes", be my guest. That's not this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks RGloucester, point taken, including about September 11 working as a name. But then, does the naming issue have to do with "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" perhaps being a name coined by Wikipedia (vs. "September 11" being in really wide usage)? See wp:NEOLOGISM. How did press coverage then, or academic sources since then, or other sources commonly refer to this topic? "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" seems a bit unwieldy to me, i would suspect that sources use something different. Why not "May 2, 2014 Odessa clashes", for one alternative, maybe that is used more. If a common name can be established, that is probably the best for an article name. By the way I've seen extended controversy about article names when members of a Wikiproject overly liked their "systematic" approach to naming articles, which worked okay when there was no other generally established name, but caused ill feelings when there was in fact a common name that some others wanted to use. Their preference for their systematic names was wrong, IMO. As a different example, I'm concerned about airplane crash names that use "Airline Flight #" format, which works fine for some cases where the crash was well-known and even led the airline to retire the flight number, but is poor for more obscure cases where the flight number actually applies to current/other flights, although it is "systematic". Here, what do the sources usually call it? And, if the usual sources that come to any consensus are mostly not in English, what is the literal translation, and what is any most common translation? But maybe there is no common name here, in fact. I hope i am not bothering people, asking for basic level explanation, when I am in fact ignorant about this topic specifically. --doncram 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no common name in reliable sources. One will hear "events of 2 May" or "tragedy of 2 May" often in the Ukrainian media, "2 May fire", "2 May clashes", "2 May incident". Russian tabloid sources tend to use "Odessa massacre", but that's a PoV name not accepted by RS. The present title is a WP:NDESC title, created because there is no one common, unambiguous, and neutral name. It is not a "neologism". This article is written in British English, with DMY dates. We are not going to use a MDY title. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As an example, see this report, which refers to the events as the "Odessa 2nd May 2014 Tragedy", or this article, which refers to "events of 2 May". The Guardian also follows the "events of 2 May" pattern. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those are relevant subsequent sources, with date of first one not given in the source as far as i can tell, but definitely some time later, and with date of second one being November or December. They both use "events of May 2" among other terms, and the 2nd uses "tragedy of May 2 in Odessa" first. --doncram 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, RGloucester. In some searching, including Google news searching and Google scholar search on (Odessa conflict 2014) and Google scholar search on (Odessa clashes 2014), right, I don't see an obvious most common name emerging. I saw examples of "Odessa massaacre" (yes, too judgmental) and "Odessa building fire" (which isn't broad enough) and "Odessa clashes" and "Odessa conflict". Not actually seeing "2 May" or "May 2" as part of naming much, though. Try:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

and vary the usage of quotes and other search parameters. --doncram 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. Looking at Google Scholar is pointless, as no books have been written on the subject, at yet. Because there is no one common unambiguous neutral name, we need to make a WP:NDESC title. That's what we have now, and that's why it should stay. It has worked for a year, it is excellent, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. It defines the scope of the events as they are, is neutral, and is unambiguous. Looking in news coverage from the day the event happened is not a good way to determine how to name an article. One needs to look at sources that look back on the event. There is no common name in these. I've already said that in Ukrainian sources with a historical perspective, "tragedy of 2 May" and "events of 2 May" are the most common names. However, neither of these are useful for an article title. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i mean no disrespect, but maybe you're too close to the subject/article as written, maybe originally when the story was fresh? I haven't checked contribution history. But it's a bit striking to me that the dates of all or almost all of the sources in the article suggest they are breaking news articles, on May 2 or very close to it. Some "access dates" are later, but when I go into the articles I see the actual article date is May 2 or so (and I have added some of those publication dates to some references). What's more and more useful for establishing best title for an article like this, is how the topic is referred to later, when there's some perspective about it, and especially by scholars/historians. Please click on the Google scholar search provided by my "Try" suggestion. That search, with ("Odessa clashes" 2014) brings you to two scholarly articles that begin to have some perspective. Try variations ("Odessa conflict" 2014), or (Odessa "May 2") and (Odessa "2 May"), etc., to find some others. I am not saying it's obvious that one name has emerged as clearly common, but you're wrong that there's been nothing written in Google scholar, and Google scholar searching is probably going to settle the name for this article, eventually if not right now. --doncram 16:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it won't settle anything. It is clear that you are not a suitable person to be commenting here, as you merely looked for hits in works, but did not actually examine what the works are. Do you have any respect for WP:V, the fundamental principle of Wikipedia? There are only two hits for "Odessa clashes". Both articles are useless here, and are not RS. One of them is a student essay that verbatim copies Wikipedia descriptions of the events in question, using Wikipedia NDESC titles to demarcate events. That is about as non-RS as it gets. The other one is an opinion piece, and hence not RS either. It only mentions "Odessa clashes" in a footnote, briefly, in a choppy poorly-written English. You won't hear me, again. I'm well aware that "SOURCES WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE", as I said previously, are what's most useful for determining whether an event has a common name. However, no or very few such sources exist. That's why we have a WP:NDESC title. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well as I pointed out, some sources exist, in contrast to your first response about Google scholar. RGloucester and I have discussed this interaction a bit elsewhere, by the way, including that I did not suggest those sources for use in the article as RS's about the topic for use in the article as RG implies. I find the personally-directed nature of this interaction to be unpleasant and will plan not to participate further (which is acceding to RG's wish that I leave, whether that is appropriate or not). --doncram 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No sources exist, because neither of those are sources for anything. They are rubbish. I am entirely correct, and you are entirely wrong. Google Scholar is useless for this particular matter, as demonstrated by the two non-sources that it found. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes into 2014 Odessa clashes. This is an unnecessary content fork and there is too much overlap in material. Plus, as User:doncram has noted, the new "2 May" deals with events on other days as well. If I were not assuming good faith, I would call the new 2 May article and the very stubby December 2014 Odessa bombings a pointy attempt to regain ownership of the topic and circumvent the previous move discussion decision. —  AjaxSmack  19:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is in fact very little or no overlap with 2014 Odessa clashes. Most of the events covered in that article take place in other parts of the year. I believe you are simply trying to make a point, rather than actually examining the situation. I did not create the bombings article, either. In fact, I nominated it for speedy deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for implicitly attributing the bombings articles to you. In addition, after reviewing this article's edit history, I realized that the consensus agreement to move this article was thwarted by your creation of a new 2014 Odessa clashes article rather than the 2 May article being a new article as I stated above. Therefore, I support a merge of the articles for the additional procedural rationale of fulfilling the recommendations of the admin in the previous RM. (Specifically, a merge of new 2014 Odessa clashes material into 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes and, then a move of 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes to 2014 Odessa clashes in order to preserve the edit history.) —  AjaxSmack  01:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge per AjaxSmack. We settled this in the move request above. The only notable clashes in Odessa in 2014 took place on 2 May, hence that should be the focus of the article. But the article title does not need to mention the date, for the reasons given in the move request above, and in fact we can mention in passing the other events of the year as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if one looks at that article, one will see that there were very significant events in Odessa in 2014 that were notable and reported. I've reliably sourced everything I put into that article, and most if it has nothing to do with 2 May at all. Are you saying that all the very significant events in January or February or whenever are non-notable, despite being reliably sourced as such? This event is a specific event that needs its own article. It is only one part of the many clashes that took place in Odessa in 2014. These users clearly do not know the history, or are being obfuscating, as they are not bothering to actually read the reliably sourced information that is in that article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge per AjaxSmack, to "2014 Odessa clashes". This current article should not have been split out of the moved article. I commented above and was planning not to !vote, but I find a further comment by RG to be a tad irksome, but more importantly I have further considered more information, including re-reading the previous Requested Move discussion of December 30, 2014, in a section above, more carefully. In that discussion the 2012 Benghazi attack example was provided as a good example which also has to do with an event primarily of one day, and wp:PRECISION principle is referenced (you don't need to be overly precise in a name), and it was pointed out that the Ukrainian language wikipedia article does not use "2 May" or "May 2", and 4 editors !voted for the move to "2014 Odessa clashes" while only RG opposed. In this new RM, 2 of the 4 editors weigh in again, and 2 new editors, Amakuru and myself, and only RG opposes. I think the principles expressed and the consideration of sources and search results by others and myself have validity. This issue has already received enough editors' attention to be settled by now, IMHO. --doncram 22:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not been settled. Don't think I'll think I'll let you get away with making a mess of articles I spent time writing. This article was never "split" out of anything. That article is entirely new, written by me. Users in that RM decided they wanted an article with expanded scope, so I wrote one for them. This is its own event, separate from those, and has independent notability as "the events of 2 May". That article, on the other hand, deals with other events in 2014, and only has a small summary section for this event. What the Ukrainian Wikipedia does is irrelevant, and "2012 Benghazi attack" is one of our worst article titles, which is something that Mr Ho himself has acknowledged in the past (it also took place on more than one day). It is not a model to follow. We must do what is correct, and this is the only correct organisation. The clashes of 2014 in Odessa are described in that article. This article, on the other hand, is only about the events of 2 May. There are no grounds for a merger, whatsoever, and it will result in a coatrack-type situation. This event is entirely separate from those events, and while those events are notable, they are not notable individually, but only as a whole. This event has independent notability. If you're unable to understand these basic principles, as I said above, I think you'd better find someplace else to spend your time. You're here to make a point, but you're failing utterly to convince anyone with a proper mind. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I commented on the Benghazi attack only because Republican Party spun it into a sensationalist campaign against Barack Obama and his first-term administration. Many opposed (Wait...) There was no consensus on renaming it because there is no other way to rename it accurately and precisely. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

oppose move, title should be Odessa Massacre common name in sources is massacre. sources:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377818/did-putin-plan-odessa-massacre-robert-zubrin http://rt.com/news/186520-odessa-massacre-report-falsified/ move tries to hide truths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Support "Odessa Massacre": this term is now widely used. Here are some examples of news sources that use it:

The Nation (US): http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities

Focus Information Agency (Bulgaria): http://www.focus-fen.net/news/2015/03/01/364734/goncharenko-is-being-interrogated-on-case-opened-over-crimes-during-odessa-massacre.html

Russia Today: http://rt.com/news/184612-europe-remember-odessa-massacre/

National Review (US): http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377818/did-putin-plan-odessa-massacre-robert-zubrin

Press TV (Iran): http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/07/361609/western-coverup-of-odessa-massacre/

Voltaire Network (France): http://www.voltairenet.org/article183839.html

I think it is wrong for this article to tip-toe around the subject and use euphemisms. Mr Bee Pod (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If I was trying to organize a festive parade of non-reliable sources, I couldn't come up with a better list.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of these PoV pushers above, Mr Ho is trying to create a coatrack article that has no basis in reliable sources. It connects events that have no inherent connection, and are not connected by reliable sources. As such, the article qualifies as WP:OR, and should be destroyed. I hope that other editors see what he is doing, which is attempting to create his own historical narrative apart from reality. RGloucester — ☎ 05:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Shut up, RGloucester. Behold, my lovely creation! --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support and merge, per George Ho's, Doncram's and AjaxSmack's sound and accurate analysis above, no need to repeat the same concepts. George Ho's draft looks excellent. Cavarrone 06:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It does not look excellent. It is rubbish, a strung together piece of nothing made by someone who has no familiarity with the topic, and which is total WP:OR. You have no argument, and you shan't succeed. RGloucester — ☎ 06:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, YOU have zero argument outside a childish ownership about the article. Just accept your fairly predictable defeat and stop roughly replying and attacking everyone votes against your wishes. It's annoying. Cavarrone 06:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I can never be defeated, because I am right, and you are wrong. Wikipedia policies are clear. There is no room for copyright violations, for strung together coatracks, for WP:OR narratives. If you'd adhere to Wikipedia policies, there would be no problem. I have all the argument. They are separate events, and are treated as such by RS. The 2 May event is independently notable, and that has been demonstrated. Merging the two articles results in a linkage of unrelated events. That's a recipe for disaster. RGloucester — ☎ 06:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist on making the December bombings notable. I haven't seen such articles at many news media. The events might fit well in the Odessa clashes article. --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak to you. RGloucester — ☎ 07:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merging sounds good to me. --IJBall (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is WP:OR. It won't happen, so drop the stick. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.