Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Where there seems to be agreement

• Both pro-Ukrainian soccer fans and pro-Russian forces were bussed in from outside Odessa. (Both apparently sent for provocation.)
• Local residents were at the mercy of the violent provocation that took place from both sides.
• The police was in on it.
• Eye witness reports confirm that there was an organized effort to control the building (turned off lights and water to the building, black smoke all at once, armed military on top of the building)
• Eye witness reports confirm that civilians were violently attacked by "aggressive" people.
• Some "aggressive" people wore civilian clothing and arm bands. They threw stones at soccer fans and built barricades.
• Some "aggressive" people shot at soccer fans from rooftops.
• Other "aggressive" people wore masks and camouflage and set civilians on fire inside the building.
• Non-aggressive civilians rescued other civilians.

Sources: [1] [2] [3] This Russian news story claims that pro-Ukrainians are responsible, but the video confirms eye witness reports and explains how the provocation happened from both sides with the help of local police. It confirms the previous 2 ladies reports who were eye witnesses. [4]. My assessment is that violence was scheduled to happen from provocation on both sides whether local people wanted it or not. All comments welcome. USchick (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of this? RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To get consensus. USchick (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are planning on implementing changes, I'd like to see the substance. At present, this article does very well to explain the situation in a neutral manner, and I fear tampering. RGloucester — ☎ 02:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't plan on making any changes at this point. I'm trying to get consensus for extra people dead and missing, more than 46 currently in the article. USchick (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Eye witness reports confirm that there was an organized effort to control the building (turned off lights and water to the building, black smoke all at once, armed military on top of the building)

See what I posted above about this, but there was no "armed military on top of the building", those were pro-russian militants, the same type of ones from the street fight who had guns.

• Eye witness reports confirm that civilians were violently attacked by "aggressive" people.

This is a very vague statement. Who are the "aggressive people"?

• Some "aggressive" people wore civilian clothing and arm bands. They threw stones at soccer fans and built barricades.

...oh, it seems you're whitewashing the pro-Russian militants and just calling them unidentified "aggressive people" --Львівське (говорити) 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

People are missing. 116 are dead on the scene, total of 200 are unaccounted. News report [5]. I'm saying there were "aggressive" people on both sides according to eye witnesses. There were also non-aggressive people. Civilians and police. USchick (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

116 dead? That's totally out-of-line with reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I provided news sources for discussion. USchick (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

::: He's getting his figure form the professional troll Graham Philips, I can see where this discussion is heading now...--Львівське (говорити) 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything about 116 dead. Nothing in anything you provided. I won't even grace the Youtube link with my presence, as I'm not going to veer into the Department of Original Research. RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Better source [6] USchick (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You call that "better"? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How this works, from what I'm seeing, is we have the official numbers (and even Russian news sticks to the official figures for the most part) and then there's the 'kamikaze' reporters they send out like here. These guys will come out with outlandish figures from unknown sources, and then Russian news will occasionally mention "as high as X by some sources" or like in that pic, throw in a tweet from an RT correspondent so readers will casually absorb these numbers and spread them around, without RT themselves vetting or endorsing the source directly. This then gets picked up by lesser news sites like the one posted above (vestnikkavkaza), to which the major news sources might then regurgitate "reported by Crap News X" when it was them in the first place that planted the seed of misinformation from an unofficial tweet. I'm also not going to watch the video, but I can only imagine where the dubious figures came from and if it came from a fall-guy like Philips or whomever. --Львівське (говорити) 03:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

More [7] [8] [9] USchick (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All you're showing is "member of the Odessa regional council" has a personal conspiracy theory of a cover up.--Львівське (говорити) 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This was already spoken about at the reliable sources noticeboard. Unless it is verified in western reliable sources, it isn't going to be used. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm showing you what reliable sources are reporting in Houston, TX. [10] USchick (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about "116 dead". RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, not that one. So unless the US reports it, it's not reliable? lol USchick (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither me nor Lvivske are American, so spare me the tripe. There is an information war going on between Ukraine and Russia, correct? Everyone knows this, and it has been widely reported as such. Given this, we do not solely use Ukrainian or Russian sources for controversial claims, unless they can be verified and cross-referenced in western reliable sources. That's what the discussion at the noticeboard determined, and it makes sense. Totally random claims from both sides pile up by the day, and if we filled our articles with them, we'd be a mockery of an encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 03:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. USchick (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought you'd see reason. It only makes sense to be double-sure when it comes to this conflict. I've never seen so much propaganda, nor have I ever before seen so many people believing it, on both sides. If you've got some good reliable western sources that say the 116 is a possibility, or even just discuss the "theory" of 116, then we could write about it. Otherwise, it would be WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Case in point, today both sides have accused the other of opening "mortar fire" on the other near Sloviansk. --Львівське (говорити) 06:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to say in the article that "paid mercenaries take part in demonstrations and street fights." [11] USchick (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, and they are called titushky. The OSCE released a report which verified that fact. However, it only portrayed them as being on the anti-Maidan side. See the report. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's enough evidence to show that it's happening on both sides. Readers not familiar with ex-Soviet war games need to be made aware of the tactics being used. As smart as I think I am (lol) even i fell for the "116 dead" story. USchick (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, as it is sourced in a reliable source, there is no reason why it could not be included somewhere. I'll look for a good way to add it in. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-Ukrainian soccer fans bussed in from outside Odessa" arrived from Kharkiv for the match between FC Chornomorets Odessa and FC Metalist Kharkiv. Why do you find it apparent that they were "sent for provocation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Chemicals

This new angle should be added when unlocked and hopefully by then more details come out from 3rd parties / the authorities: [12] [13]

"People from both sides suffered. But in fact there were terrorists brought from Transnistria and Russia who fired on the Ukrainian march and there were also special toxic substances placed at Trade Union house. It was a scenario developed in advance to make the number of victims higher." - Poroshenko

"Today, in closed session (of Parliament), we obtained additional evidence of what happened: the events that took place in the House of Trade Unions were a terrorist attack. They used toxic substances,"

--Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Who the hell is Poroshenko? Do we have reliable 3rd party sources that confirm Poroshenko's claim? No? then it's probably war propaganda.--Kathovo talk 15:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Petro Poroshenko. And I'm posting it on the talk page for a reason, as investigation details are likely to come out corroborating what he's saying.--Львівське (говорити) 15:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you just said "should be added", why SHOULD we add what is very likely war propaganda to an encyclopaedic article?--Kathovo talk 15:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"and hopefully by then more details come out" maybe replace 'and' with 'if', he's talking about evidence from authorities so it's likely forthcoming. --Львівське (говорити) 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would not even consider including this until it is independently verifiable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

independent by whom? If this is in the findings by the SBU, we obviously can't just omit official police investigations. —Львівське (говорити) 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that we can't use Poro's quote. If an actual SBU investigation's statement is included, that's fine, though we'd say who reported it. I'd also wait to see what the western media says in that regard, given the contention. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile locals in Odessa blame Kiev for the massacre in Odessa http://www.euronews.com/2014/05/06/odessa-buries-its-dead-as-locals-blame-kyiv-for-the-violence/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

the plot thickens [14]

a chloroform substance used in medicine was discovered, the head of the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Vitaliy Sakal, stated at a press briefing Monday, May 19, as reported by Interfax Ukraine.

“In the debris and the soot removed during the inspection of the Trade Union Building, a chloroform-like substance was discovered. Chloroform is well known: it is used during surgery, but how it came to be in the Trade Union Building is something we’re trying to establish,” he said.

“The inhalation of chloroform vapor, according to expert opinion, leads to respiratory arrest, which is exactly what happened here. 32 people died not from the heat but as a result of the effects of an unknown substance — cardiac arrest and choking,” Sakal said.

EPR is citing two Interfax reports so it checks out and is coming from authorities. --Львівське (говорити) 18:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian report

I'm referring to this edit. Which is it? Did the report say that no arms were found in the building, or that people were shooting on the roof? The sources don't make either clear. However, the sentence is presently contradictory. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post link is where it was from

Preliminary findings from an Interior Ministry investigation suggest that pro-Russian separatists in Odesa accidentally set the trade union building on fire with Molotov cocktails. According to an Interior Ministry statement, separatists on April 2 broke into the trade union building and barricaded themselves inside. They then from the roof started throwing Molotov cocktails and shooting with firearms at “peaceful citizens.”

Possibly they found nothing IN the building but that doesnt mean those on the roof werent armed (since those on the roof barricaded themselves up there and didnt want to come down, maybe the initial statement was on everyone not on the roof? —Львівське (говорити) 01:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible, but I'd like to find a source for 'no arms in the building' that is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• UNN via Google Translate says: "In addition, the police stated that the information that was in the House of Trade Unions weapons is also untrue". This sentence doesn't make much sense to me. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Read as "In addition, the police stated that the information that weapons were in the House of Trade Unions is also untrue". Some languages have different word order than English and google translate sometimes doesn't pick up on that, in this instance it is having "weapons" after "in the House of Trade Unions" rather than before.B01010100 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Majority of arrested are Russian nationals?

An investigation conducted by the Interior Ministry determined that the majority of the 172 people who had been arrested were identified are Russian nationals, and residents of Transnistria. Police confiscated a large number of firearms during the arrests.

Why is this presented as a fact instead of an unlikely claim, considering the SBU statement that mentioned only three Russian nationals? Ssscienccce (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Interior Ministry said that...most of the detainees, who at this time have been identified, are Russian nationals" --Львівське (говорити) 00:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

They said a lot of things that Saturday. I rephrased it to more accurately represent the source. It strikes me that the whole section, apart from the last sentence, is based on news reports published the day after the event. That's not the way encyclopedic content is usually sourced. Might be acceptable for an ongoing event, but that content was added only on May 14. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

well when we wrote it it was ongoing ;) --Львівське (говорити) 14:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

160+ death

many bodies were moved away http://let-them-know.livejournal.com/2594.html sig--Crossswords (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You surely know it is a blog?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

According to a deputy of Odessa Oblast, Vadim Savenko, there were 116 dead (phone interview, article (in Russian)). So you can add this info in the article, at least, as a claim. 85.140.228.205 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

as a claim. This is why we have WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. There's all kinds of people out there making all kinds of claims. Even as a claim it would have to be reported on in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

a claim backed up by "his sources" --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is enough to add a death toll, claimed by the other side of the conflict Over 100 people including children dead in Odessa – people’s deputy of Ukraine TsaryovBodium (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source and Tsarov is a fugitive at this point, no? We can't take the words of rebel leaders from the other side of the country. Even if he was an MP from Odessa it would be sketchy to use him as a source given his conflict of interest. --Львівське (говорити) 13:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The same can be said about the Ukrainian "officials", since the understatement of the number of casualties is in their line of interests as well. And if you remember correctly, the new Ukrainian government, until very recently, consisted of rebels.Bodium (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If these photos are genuine, they change the whole gist of the Odessa fire part of this article.

Here's a link with loads of photos (warning: gruesome photos of dead people) which were purportedly taken inside the Trade Union building in Odessa. The ones that I find particularly interesting are the ones appearing to show deceased people (some of whom appear to have been shot) with burnt heads and shoulders, but with no burns on the rest of their body, because I don't see how that is possible unless someone pours a flammable liquid over their heads and ignites it.

If these photos are genuine, there was a murderer (maybe more than one) inside the Trade Union building in Odessa, in my view. Theresonator (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

More original research and useless observations. Maybe it was Jack the Ripper? Also, at least the 'pregnant nurse' pic is proven fake. Please avoid using hoax blogs written by anonymous bloggers. --Львівське (говорити) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The photo is not proven fake. Only the claim that the woman in it was pregnant is probably untrue. This does not change the fact that she obviously did not die due to the fire but was deliberately murdered. 213.222.51.130 (talk)Melanie Helley

Affiliation unclear for the six killed by gunfire

The government states that at least 42 of the at least 48 dead were in the union building or leaped from it to their deaths. As for the other six dead, only "Odessa lawmaker Dmytro Spivak"[15] claims that all of the six were Kiev supporters. No official has separated the six dead as to whether they were pro or anti-Kiev, though I read early on that at least one of those killed by gunfire was a pro-Kiev protester. I can't find the source for that yet.Haberstr (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a mainstream source that says five were pro-Kiev, one was anti-Kiev.[16].Haberstr (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"There were weapons on the Maidan side as well, and someone _ Yusov and Kazanzhy say they don’t know who _ shot a pro-Russia demonstrator." so five confirmed and one pro-russian kind of up in the air? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaving it up in the air is OR. The RS says 5 and 1.Haberstr (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

POV applied; POV against the anti-Kiev demonstrators

(Please do not remove the tag until after a full discussion and consensus that the POV problem has been solved.) The article uses as a major source the very biased, pro-Kiev 'Kyiv Post'. The article allows in unsupported allegations from non-RS sources if they're biased against the anti-Kiev protesters. (For example: "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.") On the other hand, the entire narrative of what the anti-Kiev sources believe and say actually happened, that there were Right Sector thugs bused in, that the fire was deliberate, that when people jumped and survived they were beaten, and so on is not allowed into the article. Note the exceptional lack of balance and biased sourcing in the following, the entry's key 'assigning blame' paragraph:

Reports about the precise sequence of events that followed vary between different sources. While defending the building, militants on the roof tossed rocks and petrol bombs at the protesters below. A report by the Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (UNIAN) said that the pro-united Ukraine crowd began to throw petrol bombs into the building after having been fired upon by the pro-Russian group. BBC News said that the situation was unclear, with multiple sources indicating that both sides had been throwing petrol bombs at each other. One eyewitness told the BBC that the fire started on the third floor when a petrol bomb was thrown at a closed window from inside the building, and the Kyiv Post reported that several flaming bottles held by Ukrainian unity activists outside were thrown into the front entrance, and through the windows on the second and fourth floors. An official investigation conducted by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry stated that while no firearms were found inside the building, those on the roof were shooting at the crowd below, and accidentally set the building on fire whilst throwing petrol bombs from above. Russian sources dispute this report, saying that the fire was started intentionally by "pro-Kiev radicals," and that those who died were "anti-government activists."

Haberstr (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with the example you provide. A "narrative" only gets to be in the article if you have reliable sources to support it, not because you feel like it. I don't see any lack of balance in the quote you provide, nor do I see biased sourcing. Your complaints boil down to the fact that the article doesn't represent *your* personal POV. That's neither a reason to change anything, nor to add spurious tags to the article. I'll give you some time to come up with something more substantial, but failing that, I'm removing the tags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If Kyiv Post is RS, then Itar-TASS and Voice of Russia are reliable sources. RS is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion none of the three in the preceding sentence are reliable, so they aren't RS. I think it is very important to keep the pro-Kiev and pro-rebel publications out, or, if we're going to have them, then we have to have them from 'both sides'. Luckily, though, enough of the anti-Kiev narrative, their allegations, is in the mainstream media. Here are several RS that offer that side: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Any attempts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS will be reverted. Your continued use of phrases such as "anti-Kiev" demonstrate your unwillingness to embrace WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-Kiev" is accurate and WP:COMMON. It will be helpful if you articulate what else, specifically, you find objectionable about my edits.Haberstr (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ITAR and Voice of Russia are Russian state media, Kyiv Post is privately owned independent news. Entirely different and ridiculous to compare.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

BBC is British state media, but we accord it RS status. Many privately owned independent news media are considered biased. Common sense indicates that the Kyiv Post strongly favors the government point of view. This has been commented on widely in the RS media. Let's avoid 'home team' media from either side, okay?Haberstr (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

One more time, neither the nationality of the sources nor their ownership status determines their reliability. In theory media owned by the Russian government could be considered reliable. If it "had a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" - which is what the actual RS criteria is. The problem is that 'in actuality it doesn't. Kyiv Post has not been widely described as a propaganda outlet. RT etc have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

One more time, neither the nationality of the sources nor their ownership status determines their reliability. In theory RT.com, owned by the Russian government, could be considered unreliable. If it did not have "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" - which is what the actual RS criteria is. The problem is that 'in actuality it does. Kyiv Post has been widely described as a propaganda outlet, as has RT.com and so on, though the bottom-line criteria should be a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." Best to leave out all the non-RS media, which includes Kyiv Post.Haberstr (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

...except your statement about KP is just plain false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

...except your statement about KP is just plain false.Haberstr (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you, six years old? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just responding ad hominem the way you were responding to me. And please, no personal insults, it violates Wikipedia policy. Let's try to get along!Haberstr (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's have a common-sense introductory paragraph

Some of the editors here do not understand that introductory sections for substantial articles like this one should be much longer than three sentences or 40 words. So, please stop reverting to the paragraph immediately below, which is much too short and doesn't tell us the main events that happened on that day, in particular the events that make the day notable if not for a brief time world famous:

On 2 May 2014, as part of the rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, clashes between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian groups broke out in different streets and squares of Odessa. The events were the bloodiest civil conflict in Odessa since 1918.

The following, which has twice been reverted to the above, tells us in brief what happened, and how many people died. As I said in the notes, if you don't like some of the content below, revise, don't revert. We need to include the main facts below and the outline it provides of the basic story of what happened:

On 2 May 2014, in connection with rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, clashes between Ukrainian and pro-Russian groups broke out in the southern Ukraine city of Odessa. The clashes began when militants opposed to the new government attacked a Ukrainian unity march organized around a football match. The larger crowd then attacked the smaller group of anti-government protesters, chasing them to a trade union building. There, the two groups fought and threw Molotov cocktails at each other and into the trade union building. It caught fire and thirty-two anti-Kiev protesters and militants died from fire, asphyxiation, or chloroform poisoning, and another ten leaped to their deaths from the building. A total of six protesters died of gunshot wounds, five pro-government and one anti-government. The events were the bloodiest civil conflict in Odessa since 1918.

Haberstr (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How many people died is irrelevant to the events that took place. The lead is not a substitute for the body of the article. It only has a brief introduction to what happened, summarising the title of the article. There is no need for a huge paragraph that duplicates the body. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Many people dying IS (by far) the main event that took place, and the central reason for the newsworthiness of the events, according to RS. Therefore, it is absurd not to include the numbers of dead and how they died in the introductory section. I think you have a very very restricted and definitely inaccurate impression of such sections. Please see MOS:INTRO for further information. But I encourage you to expand and improve on what I have done. In fact the introduction for an entry this size should be perhaps three short paragraphs.Haberstr (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I do think that for an article of this size, the summary could be a bit longer, but that doesn't necessarily involve statistical information. It doesn't need to be huge, but I do believe that there could be a slightly more in-depth summary. Dustin (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've updated it. However, I will say that it is "absurd" to include statistics in the lead that are in the infobox right next door. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Every mainstream/RS news article on these events puts the number of dead in the lead sentence, so we should do it too. They're more than cold 'statistics', really. Also, according to RS, your numbers are both inaccurate and confusing. Why revise something that is perfectly clear? 42 (not 43) anti-Kiev protesters died in or around the building, while 1 died of a gunshot wound. 5 pro-government protesters died of gunshot wounds.Haberstr (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTNEWS. We are not sensationalist. We don't care about playing up how many people died. People die all the time. We state the facts in a neutral manner, and allow the reader to decide how to feel. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On the way the media convey information, Haberstr, I will completely agree with RGloucester. By the way RGloucester, there appears to be a problem with the formatting here. Sorry, but you appear to be the one adding the strange formatting, and sorry, but you are making it more difficult to tell who is replying to which particular comment. I don't know if this was a mistake or something, but I thought I should point it out, so... Dustin (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Gloucester, you haven't indicated previously that my lead section was "sensationalist." That's a new one, so please specify what you feel is sensationalistic. I hope it is not telling readers accurately how many people died, or the RS version of what in general happened, or in general what caused many people to die, as best we understand that.Haberstr (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why replace a good lead with a less complete, less accurate and less well written one?

New lead, sentence one: On 2 May 2014, as part of the rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, clashes between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian groups broke out in multiple different streets and squares of Odessa.[2][16][17] These clashes culminated in a large skirmish outside the Trade Unions House, an Odessa landmark located on Kulikovo Field in the city centre.[1] That building then caught fire in unclear circumstances, killing forty-three pro-Russian activists who had holed up in it.[12] Five other people died in running battles on the streets.[11] The events were the bloodiest civil conflict in Odessa since 1918.[18] Old lead, sentence one: On 2 May 2014, in connection with rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, clashes between Ukrainian and pro-Russian groups broke out in the southern Ukraine city of Odessa.

"multiple different streets and squares of" is wordy and doesn't add any information.Haberstr (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New lead, sentence two: These clashes culminated in a large skirmish outside the Trade Unions House, an Odessa landmark located on Kulikovo Field in the city centre.[1] Old lead, sentences two, three & four: The clashes began when militants opposed to the new government attacked a Ukrainian unity march organized around a football match. The larger crowd then attacked the smaller group of anti-government protesters, chasing them to a trade union building. There, the two groups fought and threw Molotov cocktails at each other and into the trade union building.

"Skirmish" is OR. That word is not in the citation. All RS indicate both sides were throwing molotov cocktails and that some were thrown into the building. This kind of detail is needed because it briefly provides readers a picture of the main event that caused almost 90% of the deaths.Haberstr (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New lead, sentence three: That building then caught fire in unclear circumstances, killing forty-three pro-Russian activists who had holed up in it.[12] Old lead, sentences five & six: It caught fire and thirty-two anti-Kiev protesters and militants died from fire, asphyxiation, or chloroform poisoning, and another ten leaped to their deaths from the building.

It's already clear that the circumstances are unclear, you don't need to say it. But more importantly, your numbers are off. It should be thirty two were killed by 'the fire', and ten from leaping to their death. For a total of 42, not 43. The old lead also describes the RS uncertainty over how everyone died. Note that my version doesn't say "the fire killed them" because that is OR.Haberstr (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New lead, sentence four: Five other people died in running battles on the streets.[11] Old lead, sentence seven: A total of six protesters died of gunshot wounds, five pro-government and one anti-government.

No, six other people died, and we aren't sure exactly how, so "running battles on the streets" is OR. Just say people died of gunshot wounds, that's RS and accurate. And why not say who these people are? Because the lead still needs to be several sentence longer than my old version, we _really_ don't need to take major facts out. We instead need to add more major facts into the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How is inclusion of "skirmish" original research? Just look at the very definition! Dustin (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Your "old lead" isn't the old lead, and was never stable. Don't pass it off as something accepted by consensus. You are painting too much detail, especially given the unclear nature of events. You are trying to shoehorn a POV into the lead, and that can't be tolerated. "Skirmish" isn't OR. It is the dictionary definition of the word. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

???

An editor apparently believes an RT bottom-of-the-barrel yellow press bit is more reliable than an official UN report. Why? RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Renamed

I'm sure some biased editors will restore this "politically correct" (for some POV-driven users) title, but I renamed this article, apart from common sense, for this simple reason:

• 2014 Odessa clashes gaves 263,000 results in Google
• 2014 Odessa massacre gaves 415,000 results in Google

So its illogic to name this article "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes", unless our own political views are more important than being fair & balanced. Ah, and please dont use the argument "but there were deaths in boths sides, so that wasnt a massacre", as for example, incidents in Syria with killed in both sides had been labelled as massacres, so unless we want to made double standards and being unbalanced, this article should be labelled as one. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RS don't call it a massacre. Be careful. RGloucester — ☎ 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And who has decided that any source critical of Ukraine is automatically not reliable? This kind of statement is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and will be disptued at ANI if it continues.

In addition, an UN report is also not that reliable, simply because noone from the UN was a direct observer at the event and then UN simply went by what it was report to it. - 94.140.73.150 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bias?

This article reads as if it was written by the current Ukrainian government. Take the cause of the fire, for example. There is loads of video footage of Ukrainian nationalists throwing fire-bombs at the building. I have yet to see any video footage of pro-Russian people throwing fire-bombs at the building.

Absent any unbiased evidence to the contrary, the most likely cause of the fire should be the one stated in the article - fire-bombs thrown by Ukrainian nationalists.

Any alternate theories, like some highly unlikely accident, should be listed afterwards, if there is unbiased evidence to support them. The word of the Ukrainian government (which is hardly an unbiased onlooker, having subsequently employed the Right Sector Ukrainian nationalists in the National Guard) seems to be being given far too much credence.

And it should be called the 2014 Odessa Massacre, in my view, because that's what it was. Theresonator (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

this is your own conspiracy theory, not based on reliable sources. You watching videos doesn't make you some expert. --Львівське (говорити) 18:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Theresonator is hardly an unbiased onlooker. In his comments "unbiased" should be read as "biased enough towards my prejudices". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

" The word of the Ukrainian government (which is hardly an unbiased onlooker, " welcome to the mainstream news, complete lackeys of the State Departmen.83.84.116.23 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what I saw. Pro-Ukraine neo-Nazis fire-bombing the Trade Union building. Theresonator (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

your less than eye-witness testimony is duly noted. —Львівське (говорити) 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:Original research. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have loads of links which support my assertion. But from what I've seen, this article is so biased in favour of the Kiev regime that the truth will never be allowed to get out, so I'm loathe to post the links. Theresonator (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH --Львівське (говорити) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

They are links to websites with videos on them. They are someone else's research, not mine. And the unbelievable pro-Kiev bias in this article still exists. It shames Wikipedia that people are covering up for neo-Nazi mass murderers. Theresonator (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE --Львівське (говорити) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you ashamed to be defending neo-Nazis? Theresonator (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No. --Львівське (говорити) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Why some piece of Ukrainian nazi shit named Львівське is in EVERY THREAD ON THIS TALK PAGE, everywhere dismissing each and every source that aren't Ukrainian or don't align to junta's twist, while simulationsly presenting Ukrainian sources as 100% correct? What about NPOV? Youtube with fucking LIVE VIDEO OF INCIDENT is bad, but some Ukrainian newspaper singing juntas tune is doubleplusgood? If first is "original research" then random piece from some random journalist is just as original. This clown should be banned. Entire article should either present all reported points or be reduced to single sentence "We don't know what happened". --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

He even have "Remembers heroes of Ukrainian Insurgent Army" on his user page. Yes, we all do. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Junta junta junta. Junta, junta junta junta? Junta. --Львівське (говорити) 03:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

From the bit about how the fire started: "A report by the Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (UNIAN) said that the pro-united Ukraine crowd began to throw petrol bombs into the building after having been fired upon by the pro-Russian group." It was handy that they happened to have petrol bombs with them, no doubt for entirely peaceful purposes, wasn't it? It couldn't possibly be the case that the neo-Nazis went to Odessa looking to set loads of people on fire, and that's why they had so many petrol bombs with them, could it? Theresonator (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

They were making petrol bombs on the spot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9z0e246oxw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing about molotov cocktails is that they are improvised and can be made very quickly. All you need is a bottle and some gasoline. What point is even trying to be made here? We know they had them, we know the Russian side was making them indoors too. Both sides threw them. We also know the fire that did the killing was on the 3rd floor - have you ever tried throwing a bottle that high? Go grab a baseball and see how many stories high you can throw it - now add weight and the fact a flaming bottle isnt exactly aerodynamic. --Львівське (говорити) 22:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, peaceful people on marches always carry petrol, to allow them to make petrol bombs, just in case they get attacked. Just like peaceful protesters carry metal bars or wooden bats, just in case. Where are the videos of pro-Russians throwing petrol bombs? Theresonator (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages arent a soapbox for you to come up with theories or excuses. Do you have a specific content issue or are you just here to rant? There are plenty of videos of the pro-Russians, armed with weapons, throwing molotovs in the streets and shooting people with guns. The Ukrainian side had self-defense units with them to protect the group, no one is denying that, nor is anyone denying that they eventually made their own molotovs as a response to the violence. --Львівське (говорити) 22:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've stated my problem with the article - it reads as if it was written by Right Sector neo-Nazis, in an attempt to blame their murderous actions on others. Theresonator (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

duly noted--Львівське (говорити) 23:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me give you an insight: Lviv|Львів is the home town of ukranian neo-nazis . This explaines a lot about Львівське arrogant persistence. This user should be banned, the whole article rewritten, and title changed to "2014 Odessa Massacre" 130.204.28.68 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Melanie Helley

Agree! Also need to add to the article that Maidan supporters were shooting at the pro-Russian demonstrators, using firearms. There were Maidan leaders shooting at the Union house, videos of him are available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_oM2uR7Eek --66.182.227.103 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)--66.182.227.103 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest renaming this article "2 May 2014 Odessa fire: criminal pro-russian anti-fascist seperatists deliberately burn themselves to death after attacking peaceful civil rights march of innocent Ukrainian neo-nazis (source: Right Sector, Svoboda, CIA Ukraine etc.)." Shame on English Wikipedia for allowing such a travesty of the truth to soil its pages! 79.75.207.196 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, Lvivske, stop trying to censor articles about Ukraine to be in favor of the pro-Ukrainian side. And before you start anything, look at your own name. Lvivske, meaning from L'viv. I've been to that place and the Russophobia there is astounding. People refused to talk to us if we dared so much as address them in Russian instead of Ukrainian. So chances are you are like them too. I hope you are not but I can not fully trust you.

As regards the Odessa events, there is plenty of evidence that the perpetrators were Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. The evidence includes live streams recorded by the people themselves which clearly shows what happened. Also a tape recording of phone calls to 101 (the Ukrainian equivalent of 911) was leaked that shows the sheer number of calls reporting fire on Kulikovo pole, and the dispatchers not sending a fire truck.

Let me also remind you that the policy of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, not "Ukrainian point of view", so if you don't stop attempting to censor Ukraine articles according to pro-Ukrainian views, I am going to take you to the ANI for violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.73.150 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Neutrality dispute

There are two sides to this story, but the article clearly favors one of them. There are scare quotes around terms like "pro-Kiev radicals" and "anti-government activists", but none around terms like "pro-Ukrainian demonstrators" and "pro-Russian forces" (why is one group, which appears to be the more violent, called "demonstrators" while the other is "forces"?) Presumably you catch my drift. 55 Gators (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We give WP:DUE weight on the basis of RS. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the article refers to "pro-Ukrainian" and "pro-Russian" "groups", or "pro-Ukrainian" and "pro-Russian" "demonstrators". Without the scare quotes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to "pro-Ukrainians" is nonsense. Both sides in the clashes were Ukrainian. It was about being for or against the new regime in Kiev, i.e. pro or anti-Kiev. Perhaps you could write about "pro-West" and "pro-Russian" but to label the dead as "pro-Russian" insinuates they are somehow less Ukrainian than the "pro-Ukrainians".

More importantly, the TITLE is euphemistic to the point of propaganda. It should read "Odessa Massacre". That's what happened if you've actually seen the photographs of the dead in the building. What happened outside is a distraction compared to the carnage in the TU Building. Again, Wikipedia is an awful platform for mainstream propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.156.58 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of some random anonymous IP on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not need any source for the following facts: that both sides were Ukrainian; that members of one side in the "incident" were massacred. Therefore "pro-Ukrainian" is a meaningless phrase and "massacre" is, in fact, a mainstream view of what happend in that building. You volunteers proclaim you're defending against "POV" bias but you are gatekeepers defending a very biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.156.58 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

IP blockd for 24h for edit-warring and disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is valid to question the use of "Pro-Ukrainian" and "Pro-Russian" as terms to describe the opposing factions. I think it is also disingenuous to ascribe this to "the sources" -- that simply indicates that some editors are finding sources to justify a bias, not the other way around. This article, to be neutral, would need an approximate balance of pro-Russian and pro-NATO sources, and I'm not seeing that. Mr Bee Pod (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

what is this?ukraine demonstrators are ukraine demonstrators from transnistria militants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.100.0 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest two possible alternatives: describe the factions as "Pro-Russian" and "Pro-NATO", or else call them the "pro-government" and "dissident" factions. 55 Gators (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. There are no sources that describe the pro-Ukrainian protesters as "pro-Nato protesters". We follow RS, and no, we don't "balance" sources. That's called "false balance". We use RS, and only RS, and give WP:DUE weight based on how RS give due weight. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, here are some sources. The Guardian uses the term "Odessa massacre" and describes the opposing factions as "pro-Russian" and "pro-Maidan," which seems relatively neutral. [22] The Los Angeles Times calls the factions "separatist" vs. "pro-European," also relatively neutral. [23] International Business Times uses "separatist" and "pro-government". [24] Notice that I am not quoting any Russian media. Is it your position that Russian media should be excluded from the article as sources? Because you will find very different terminology in Russian press accounts. 55 Gators (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not use "Odessa massacre". It says that "some" call it that. LA Times does not say "separatist" vs. "pro-European". It says that that is how Lavrov described the conflict, and it does not mention the Odessa incident. The IB Times article has nothing to do with this Odessa incident. We go by RS, and how they describe this incident. The cited sources say what they say. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your answer seems evasive. The LA Times does not use quotation marks around those terms. And what is your response to my question about the use of Russian media as sources? That would seem to be the crux of the matter. 55 Gators (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash something that's been discussed thousands of times. You'll have to live with what you've got. RGloucester — ☎ 19:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)