Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Having screwed around with the content, looking at comparative measures…I think it makes most sense to remerge this. That seems disruptive, and I agree. My apologies. I needed to see how it would work out. However, there just isn't enough content to warrant an article. Anyone opposed to a re-merger? RGloucester 00:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Too much stuff is happening at once. I'll leave this alone for a while, to see how it turns out. RGloucester 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Washington post is reporting that "a pro-Ukrainian mob" started the fire

Ukraine suffers deadliest day in months; 34 killed in Odessa
The biggest loss of lives came in Odessa....
Friday evening, a pro-Ukrainian mob attacked a camp where the pro-Russian supporters had pitched tents, forcing them to flee to a nearby government building, a witness said. The mob then threw gasoline bombs into the building. Police said 31 people were killed when they choked on smoke or jumped out of windows.
Asked who had thrown the molotov cocktails, pro-Ukrainian activist Diana Berg said, “Our people — but now they are helping them to escape the building.”

El País also reported that "supporters of Kiev started the fire". So we have two reliable sources stating that the Trade Union House was set on fire by pro-Kiev demonstrators. If I add this information to the article, citing the sources, will other editors allow it to stand, or will they suppress it by undoing my edit? – Herzen (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is sourced, do what you want. RGloucester 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
✔ I've already included the WP source into the body --Львівське (говорити) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
washington post is the american-sponsored source, it cant be reliable

A peaceful rally was held by

I saw video from that rally and they were smashing windows and attacking women who protested against violence. It certainly wasn't "peaceful". --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

'At least 42 killed'

Reuters reports "at least 42 killed" in Odessa on May 2. [1] See also Kyiv Post, "dozens killed." [2] Sca (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


Anyone know a good source of free images of the clashes? Or perhaps there are some people from Odessa who might've taken pictures? Would be nice if they could be uploaded to the commons. RGloucester 17:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is a redirect?

What the hell? RGloucester 00:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Again, there was no weapon in the Trade Union Building. Here is the proof from the police:

All shooting taked place at the clashes near Grecheskaya Square. There was no gunfire near Kulikovo Field.

Also, please add, that some people, jumping from the fire, were beaten to death by protesters. Here is the link.

Sorry, i cant change this myself, because my English is poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барон Суббота (talkcontribs) 10:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the "peaceful rally" was consisted from football ultras from Odessa and Kharkov. The same scenario was used before in Kharkov and Donetsk, both times ended with clashes. In Kharkov they beat local pro-russian activists, in Donetsk they were beated themselves. Барон Суббота (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use google translate to translate the crucial sentences into English, paste them here, and I can enter the relevant information into the text after review.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

At first, it is crucial, that there is not the first such action. There were already 2 actions with footall ultras in Ukraine, 27 April in Kharkon and 28 April in Donetsk. In Kharkov they have beated pro-russian activists, in Donketsk they were beated themselves. But it was known beforehand, that Kharkov ultras would come to Odessa, so everyone expected the clashes.
There was two separate episodes. Clases started in the center of city, both sides build the barricades and using them as a cover, throw stones and molotov to each other. At some point both sides start to use guns. At the end, ultras break through the barricades, and pro-russian activists retreated. This is the end of the first episode.
Then, pro-ukrainian activists decided to destroy pro-russian camp at the Kulikovo Field. It was some sort of campside, that stays there already 2 monthes. People here have not participated in the clashes, some participants from the clashes retreated there, but mostly there were only peaceful protesters. When pro-ukrainian activists come here, the inhabitants retreated to the Trade Union Building. Pro-ukranian activists set the camp afire and try to break in the building. Both sides throw molotovs in each other, then the building start to burn. People from the building started to jump from the windows on the 2 floor, pro-ukrainian activists catched them and beat them. At some point police come, but done nothing to stop this. At least the fire veihicle come, and then the ambulance, but protesters didn't let them take the injured. Then the police cars come and take the injured, thought the activists also tried to stop the car.
This is the brief description of what i know. If you need link on sources about any of the episodes - write me, and i would try to find links to the odessa news sites. Барон Суббота (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"Whilst defending the building, militants on the roof tossed rocks and petrol bombs at the protesters below, and also opened fire upon them" - it is a lie. See the video  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 

Report BBC

Pretty sad that the Ukrainian nationalists are destroying Wikipedia, they are shooting at the protestors who are inside the building. -- (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Protesters vs. militants

Sources seem to use the word militants, which is applicable considering those involved. Here is a good blog with photos [3] As we know, this wasn't a scuffle between rival protest rallies, but an attack by one group on a protest rally. The group was armed with bats and shields whereas the pro-Ukrainian rally was attended by a wide spectrum of locals from women to kids to self defense groups. Also, the Russian side was armed with machine guns which would clearly identify them as 'militants' and not 'demonstrators'. --Львівське (говорити) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian side was armed with machine guns. Oh come on, you can buy those Uzis in any corner grocery store, along with RPGs, mortars and anti-aircraft rockets. Everybody knows that. These are just regular folks, salt of the earth and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on neutrality plus a lot of the provided sources call the pro-Russians protesters or activists. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
it's also based on reliable sources. I did a search and found major sources from the new york times, guardian, and AP all calling them 'militants'. Activists seems to be used by RT or Voice of Russia trying to whitewash events. --Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of the sources call the pro-Russians "demonstrators". I don't think it's fit to call them "militants". Some of the sources seem a bit bias, preferring the word "demonstrators" for pro-Ukrainian activists and "militants" for pro-Russian activists. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that its only used by RT and VOR is in-correct. I added a Guardian report that specifically calls them activists, which seems to have been ignored. In any case, point is, not all of the western sources are calling them militants. For example here [4] Daily News calls them anti-government advocates. So to adher to Wikipedia policy of neutrality a neutral term must be found and not push just one POV (that they are militants). EkoGraf (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian also calls them "fighters". I don't think calling people with guns and clubs (who called to "gather and crush the unification march") "advocates" is particularly neutral...--Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I am also not for advocates, I was just giving an example that not all western media call them militants and I'm trying to point out that in this specific case (Odessa) a more neutral term is needed (militants not being it). EkoGraf (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I support naming these groups protesters and activists. Militants is too POV. " Oh come on, you can buy those Uzis in any corner grocery store, along with RPGs, mortars and anti-aircraft rockets. Everybody knows that", the guys in Odessa had only small firearms(and there was one guy I believe with AK rifle).It isn't that difficult to obtain such weapons. As to your sentence, it's actually not impossible to purchase these kind of weapons on black market. A year ago a guy in Poland was arrested who purchased anti-air missile.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is now video showing Russian protesters being murdered after escaping from fire.

It's pretty graphic so I won't post it here.If somebody is interested I can send link by email. I hope some media will catch on this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Add it to the external links section. RGloucester 16:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative versions

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and presents the different sources and it can not only cite pro-guvernamental versions, but the opposition versions too. RGloucester suppressed the pro-Russian version of events. First, the name of movement pro-referendum: People’s Alternative movement. Hhmb (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suppress anything, but this will require discussion first. I'm not sure how to handle this situation. Either we present two versions of the events, which will be odd, or we wait for western sources to catch up. Let's wait for others to comment. Also, no one contests that there was a pro-Russian camp outside the Trade Unions building. RGloucester 06:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, you choose only western sources and suppressed all the texts of alternative version. Hhmb (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Texts suppressed

Furthermore, the following texts:
  • But, according to pro-Russian, they were camped from the previous day, when thousands of people in Odessa marched through its central streets on May 1, carrying placards that read “Odessa Is a Hero City”, “Referendum” and “Fascism Won’t Pass” and they decided to stay on Kulikovo Field until the authorities meet our demands for a referendum.[1]
  • According the pro-Russians a mass brawl at Grecheskaya Street was instigated by football fans, Right Sector and Self-Defence radicals from Kiev, who provoked clashes with federalization supporters and later set fire to a camp at Kulikovo Field where activists collected signatures to hold a referendum.[2]
  • Thirty-one people died whilst trapped in the burning Trade Unions House.[3] Those who survived were cruelly beaten by Right Sector radicals with batons.[2]
  • Former governor and deputy Nikolai Skorik demands to urgently convene a session of the regional council about Friday's disorders. Regional council member and Odessa mayoral candidate Alexei Albu said that "Right Sector members who attacked the House of Trade Unions were fully equipped, armed and prepared beforehand".[2]
  • Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, said that to burn people alive "are reminiscent of the crimes of the Nazis from whom the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists derive their ideological inspiration".[4]
Hhmb (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Western media conceal who executed the slaughter

Despite clear evidence that the ultra-nationalists set Odessa’s House of Trade Unions ablaze on Friday killing dozens,[5][6] the mainstream western media is being ambiguous about the causes of the tragedy and who is behind deadly Odessa blaze.[7] This is concealment. Wikipedia can not depend only of western media but two users are deleting all traces of another version. Hhmb (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


statement re trade union building not backed by sources provided

The article states that: "After being fired upon, the pro-Ukraine crowd began to throw petrol bombs into the building".

I think the phrasing is a little bit problematic for such a sensitive issue since it might lead some readers to infer that the attack occurred after the people outside the building have been provoked by the use of firearms against them (which might or might not have been the case). What the two cited articles (BBC and WP, I sadly cannot understand the one in Cyrillic) mention however is not that.

WP: "Friday evening, a pro-Ukrainian mob attacked a camp where the pro-Russian supporters had pitched tents, forcing them to flee to a nearby government building, a witness said. The mob then threw gasoline bombs into the building. Police said 31 people were killed when they choked on smoke or jumped out of windows. Asked who had thrown the molotov cocktails, pro-Ukrainian activist Diana Berg said, “Our people — but now they are helping them to escape the building.” "

BBC: "The exact sequence of events is still unclear, but reports suggest the separatists had barricaded themselves inside the building and both sides were throwing petrol bombs."

None of these sources mentions shooting/provocation and in fact the WP does not even mention Molotov cocktails thrown from the building. As such the sentence as it stands should either (a) be modified to reflect what the sources say (b) be supported by other neutral sources that support what it says.

Another option would be to include more sentences each summarising what the different sources say in order to convey that the situation is still not very clear Kkostagiannis (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It is represented in the source: read this one. RGloucester 16:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe I added the caveat that I cannot read the one in Cyrillic since I do not know the language. :)
Anyhow, it is represented in only *one* source of the three provided. In fact the two sources in English make different claims that are not reflected in the text as it stands. This was my main concern, and still is. Kkostagiannis (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be worthwhile to parse that out. I was merely saying that the statement is found in a source, not that present sentence structure is appropriate. You can use Google translate for a cursory translation, by the way. RGloucester 16:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes the Russian/Ukrainian(?) source backs the statement according to google translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkostagiannis (talkcontribs) 17:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned -->
It is a Ukrainian-based Russian-language source. RGloucester 17:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
would that rephrasing of the whole paragraph be better? (I realised the same statements were discussed elsewhere in the same paragraph so tried to organise them a little bit better). I understand that this reformulation is slightly biased towards the 'unclear situation' reported by the BBC but if the sources disagree with each other I think it is better to mention all different views. I only used the existing sources for the reformulation.
"Reports about the precise sequence of events vary. Some sources claim that whilst defending the building, militants on the roof tossed rocks and petrol bombs at the protesters below, and also opened fire upon them. According to, the pro-Ukraine crowd began to throw petrol bombs into the building after being fired upon. The BBC reported that the situation was unclear and that according to reports “both sides were throwing petrol bombs”. The Washington Post reported that “a pro-Ukrainian mob” threw Molotov cocktails to the building. The official report conducted by the Interior Ministry stated that no weapons were found inside the building and that pro-Russian separatists accidentally set the building on fire with petrol bombs."Kkostagiannis (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


@Kkostagiannis: How will the following do, in your eyes? RGloucester 17:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Reports about the precise sequence of events that followed vary between different sources. Some claim that whist defending the building, militants on the roof tossed rocks and petrol bombs at the protesters below.[1][2] 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.[3] Another report by BBC News claimed that the situation was unclear, and that both sides had been throwing petrol bombs.[4] However, an article in the Washington Post said that a "pro-Ukrainian mob" threw petrol bombs into the building, causing the building to set alight.[5] An official investigation conducted by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry stated that no firearms were found inside the building, but that the pro-Russian group accidentally set the building on fire whilst throwing petrol bombs.[6][7]

it works for me. Much better than the rather dry version I prepared. Kkostagiannis (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done – Thanks for your assistance. RGloucester 17:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Balanced source BBC

A BBC report about what happened in Odessa.-- (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the source. I've incorporated it into the body, and added some new information. RGloucester 19:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should not report on ongoing event like a news ticker, but only report about it, when some time has passed, in order to assure a more neutral view and a wider range of sources, that are not available one or two days after something somewhere has happened. What would we have written about the Reichstag fire in 1933, if the Wikipedia-article would have created only one day after the event, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or about Korean Air Lines Flight 007? Think about this! --El bes (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

thankfully Wikipedia is editable and we can correct things over time. --Львівське (говорити) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm a vocal advocate of WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester 21:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

How the fire started

BBC quoted an eyewitness saying that someone inside tried throwing a molotov through a window on the 3rd floor, starting the fire from the inside; this of course lines up with the official police reports. KP posted an article on what happened and this youtube video, at the 2:00 mark I think this appears to be what happened inside. [5] Of course this is only one of the fires, there's another in the foyer, but maybe that's why the smoke was so bad (multiple fire sources)--Львівське (говорити) 20:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be actually connected to the dozens of dozens molotov's being thrown by pro-Kiev mob into the building. Of which we have numerous videos. Also the eyewitness and BBC are two different things. The eyewitness would need to be verified. For all we know he could be one of the supporters of Kiev authorities.—MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The BBC has two separate eyewitness accounts, and makes sure to mention that neither is certain. RGloucester 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
two groups had a fire fight and the thing in between them caught on fire. I don't think we'll ever get a clearer or more obvious answer to what happened. —Львівське (говорити) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly why we can't privilege one view. The sources in that paragraph already provide the spectrum of potential options. No need to add extras, as that will appear to be WP:UNDUE. RGloucester 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well seems RT figured it all out, the mainstream media (aka. the 'MSM') has been covering it all up! [6] --Львівське (говорити) 07:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro vs Pro

To pose 'pro-Ukrainian' against 'pro-Russian' is in itself POV. Amongst the so-called pro-Russians are people that want a federal Ukraine. Labelling them as anti-Ukrainian would be like defining supporters of state rights in the US as 'anti-American'. --Soman (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

do you have a source indicating that those involved in the attack did so in the name of federalization? --Львівське (говорити) 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
You're misreading my comment. My point is that the pro-Ukrainian/pro-Russian dichotomy is false, it is a political statement of those sectors trying to portray large parts of the population of the country as aliens or second class citizens. —Soman (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how its political. Those wearing the colorado colors are "pro-Russian" for the most part, those involved here were at a rally for Ukrainian national unity (so "pro-Ukraine" is apropos). I'm only talking about this article in specific, other articles are less black and white, I'd agree --Львівське (говорити) 20:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer 'pro and anti government' myself. RGloucester 20:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

you are biased lwiwskie because you are yourself supporter of unity. "anti goverment" would be fair because that way of calling them emphasises that not all of them are for joining russia. Actually i think that most of them are pro-soviet not pro russia, because for many of them soviet times were better than ukrainian. Ukrainian state hasn't worked well. Kazimierz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

External links

Just speaking in general, whether it's this article or any other article on Wikipedia, we should prune overgrown "External Links" farms. They are usually nothing but attempts at promo, search optimization or subtle POV pushing. Often times users who can't get in their sketchy non-reliable sources into text will try to circumvent the WP:RS requirement by sticking these into the EL section.

And indeed that's what's going on here, with most of the links either to somebody's livejournal blog or Russian TV propaganda. Additionally, even putting that aside, I don't think it makes sense to include non-English links in ELs. Of course we can use non-English sources in the article, but that's because the purpose of sourcing is different than purpose of providing external links.

Basically, for something to be included in EL, its presence must be justified and sound, and we should not include sketchy stuff. So I'm removing these again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We have no pictures, so I think we should provide links to places that do, given the visceral nature of events. RGloucester 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
only links to reputable sources, not livejournal/youtube where people can splice in pics from other warzones and pretend it's odessa. I lost my best friend today after she saw a Russian livejournal and became incensed with rage at "the fascists". Needless to say, I'm sick of the junk.--Львівське (говорити) 22:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There was no one journalist from England or America, and no one eye-witness from that countries, Cathry (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
how can you be sure?--Львівське (говорити) 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If even they were they did not reveal till now. Cathry (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Info on attacks on people who were trying to flee was removed-although it is sourced by BBC

At the current time the article is highly biased. Info on attacks on people who were trying to flee was removed-although it is sourced by BBC, while only misleading information that "Ukrainian side saved people" is remaining. BBC reported eyewitnesses reporting attacks on fleeing people, and there numerous youtube videos showing(yes I know youtube is not a source we can use). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, eyewitness accounts from both sides were deleted, the explanation was "Stop giving WP:UNDUE weight to random eyewitnesses. This section is merely about the fire itself, not about miscellaneous details." and "The BBC article even says it is disputed." --Львівське (говорити) 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaving information that fleeing people were supposedly "saved" when in fact you have numerous evidence of them being beaten presents serious POV issues. And there is nothing "undue" about mentioning that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the latter but its abundantly reported and videod that numerous volunteers were helping the wounded. --Львівське (говорити) 23:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, the bit about people fleeing out windows is mentioned earlier in the article. Provide a reliable source on the talk page about the beatings, and I would put it in to balance it. The bit about people being saved is reported by numerous outlets, and in-fact, multiple videos provided by Russia Today verify that. RGloucester 23:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC) I have added source from Telegraph about attacks on fleeing people which is a reliable source of information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Greek TV just broadcasted a video(i think originally from RT) where neonazis are 'finishing' all those who were jumping from the burning building From the footage it is clear that some right sector members(neonazis) were shooting the ones who jumped and did not die immediately or smashing people's heads with buts It is clear that even western media like UK 'based 'Telegraph' refers to the events as 'MASSACRE' Additional Greek-speaking media about the Massacre of Odessa There are protests against the far-right violent groups which control Ukraine right now in Athens This is the link with several vids showing the murder of people who were jumping from the building — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is all just original research based on videos from RT resyndicated by some less than reliable Greek sites --Львівське (говорити) 15:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You simply have no clue Antenna is a major bews broadcasting agency and TV, perhaps the biggest in Greece right now This just shows your bias towards any source claiming something that you personally dislike You have no clue how to evaluate Greek media but still you are obsessed... And the fact that some of the vids come from RT does not mean anything unless falsification of the originality is proven... Once again you prove that you are one sided and totally biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Btw this the wiki article for Antena I am waiting now the guy named Lvivske to edit this article too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Since Antena seems to be reliable source I suggest translating this information and using it to expand the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

seeing as they have no journalists or correspondents in the country, and are just repeating what RT says, how is this a reliable or relevant source? We use non english sources when a comparable source isnt available, in this situation there are plenty of english sources documenting this. --Львівське (говорити) 19:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
"seeing as they have no journalists or correspondents in the country, and are just repeating what RT say"-please don't pursue original research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no logic to delete facts from spectators and survived. You have no right to do this. Cathry (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske you do not trust RT when they do have journalists and reporters in Odessa...and you do not trust Greek9actually a EU member-country)either so stop spreading your extreme pronazi bias

Odessa has a Greek consulate, if you were at least familiar with the history of the city or the city itself you should know some things...i do guess you do not even live in Ukraine or even close...but still you pretend to know 'everything' Gradually many media call the incidents of Odessa as 'Odessa Massacre' for the reasons that right sector members deliberately set fire to the building, start shooting and beating anyone who tried to escape in order to MURDER. Wikipedia should fix at some point the correct name of the incidents There aplenty of visual material and evidence(pics,vids...) but still you pretend you did not read did not see anything... At the end of the day it is NOT lvivskepedia

Revert edit (2)

Why do you delete this?:

Chief editor of (regional Odessa media), who was injured during clashes, says that police did not interview him and other injured eyewitnesses Cathry (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

_Revert edit by Lvivske (1)

Deletes information about escaped from fire people which was shooting by pro-unity activists. it comes from reliable source "As survivors said unity activists shot them and threw Molotov cocktails when they tried to escape through the stairs" Cathry (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

it was written incoherently and please see the section called 'Info on attacks on people who were trying to flee was removed-although it is sourced by BBC' we were already talking about how to handle the eyewitnesses BBC reported on --Львівське (говорити) 23:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not know what article it was, it seems to me it was another. And I do not see logic in your arguments. Cathry (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
logic? it's called forming consensus on building the article and not giving undue weight to the words of spectators. --Львівське (говорити) 23:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In this article there were not spectators, but survived. And there is no logic to delete facts from spectators and survived. You have no right to do this. I don′t see consensus in upper section. As i see at first some user deleted info without consensus Cathry (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't even know how to respond to this --Львівське (говорити) 23:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a policy called WP:NPOV, and a sub-policy of that called WP:DUE weight. We are not a WP:SOAPBOX for random eyewitness reports that even the BBC claims are disputed. That would be given WP:UNDUE weight to the eyewitness, who has no inherent credibility as a primary source. Given that the BBC, a reliable secondary source, makes clear that such information is not 'factual' or 'verifiable', it should not be placed in the article. Stick to descriptions of events. RGloucester 00:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Article says about crowd of eyewitnesses which have same opinion about shooting and throwing cocktails at them Cathry (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
the mutual throwing of molotovs is already addressed in the article. what point are you trying to make?--Львівське (говорити) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no facts in the article about shooting and throwing of molotovs at pro-russian protesters when they tried to escape from fire. Cathry (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Report Львівське andRGloucester

This isn't going anywhere constructive and the OP has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As these two apparently OWN this article and Львівське especially reverts this article 5 times per day report them to WP:AE as there are WP:DIGWUREN rulings that allow either to ban or to restrict these revert happy individuals in Eastern European articles. Report them to admin Sandstein (talk · contribs).

Львівське already was blocked for 1RR violation by EdJohnston, so report directly to him or Future Perfect at Sunrise, citing his reverts and deletions of sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landcontrib (talkcontribs) 03:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Four edits and knows all about WP:DIGWUREN, and several administrators. Obvious sock is obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done nothing but remove unsourced, NPOV, and poorly written nonsense. I've been absolutely civil on the talk page, and I've asked for discussion. Regardless, the edits in question keep being reinserted. So please, do evaluate my behaviour, if you think it is questionable. However, I will defend myself to the last. RGloucester 03:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I only revert obvious vandalism --Львівське (говорити) 03:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
So, you say, that this is not a source?. Seryo93 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) UPD: abstain. Seryo93 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert edit (3). Wikipedia Censorship

This article obviously brings new facts but this edit was also reverted

facts: 1) 3, 8 and 14 Euromaidan self-defense groups also were there

2)Pro-unity activists chanted patriotic slogans such as «Death to the enemies», «Ukraine above all»

3)Pro-Russian mob at first built barricade, their opponents saw that and ran there with stones and clubs

4)Both pro-Russian and pro-unity side was armed and shooting at opponents

5)Some were hardly beaten after they jumped from the fire

"You are skewing the meaning of the sources, and introducing redundant poorly written information that is already in the body. " If RGloucester wants to make article better, he can simple write "nicely". There is no "skewing" at all Cathry (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The article already says that some were beaten while trying to escape the fire. Patriotic slogans are already included. The bit about barricades doesn't correspond with the BBC article I read on the subject. The bit about both sides shooting each-other is unclear, and the BBC makes that clear. Furthermore, the grammar of the sentences was very poor, citations tags per broken, and most of it was unreferenced.RGloucester 02:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
" Patriotic slogans are already included." where? there nothing about "«Death to the enemies», «Ukraine above all» " There was no one bbc journalist, so they may have no full info. It is rather important information about Maidan self-defense, "tags per broken, and most of it was unreferenced." it is also untrue, all referenced at the end of sentence, it is obviously easy to improve grammar to you or another editor. Cathry (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
your edits are increasingly incoherent --Львівське (говорити) 02:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Arrogant remarks are against rules, as far as i know.Cathry (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Add more like this: May 6, 2014, deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation announced plans to bring the Ukrainian authorities to the International Criminal Court in the Hague for crimes against humanity.Гость из будущего (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is Incorrect; contradicted by Primary Evidence

"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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has many inaccuracies. Based on Primary Evidence any reasonable person will find:

1. The Pro-Europeans chased the Pro-Russian demonstrators into the trade union building.

2. The Pro-Europeans prevented the Pro-Russian demonstrators from escaping.

3. The Pro-Europeans deliberately set the trade union build on fire using Molotovs.

4. The Pro-Europeans shot anyone who attempted to escape the flames.

I'm surprised this article doesn't even mention that the Pro-European hooligans chanted "Glory to Ukraine" while people jumped to their deaths trying to escape the flames. Seems a little biased in it's current form. (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • We don't use WP:PRIMARY sources, unless they are explained in reliable secondary sources, and hence verified. RGloucester 02:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:Primary: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"
What you don't recognize is that I did not make any interpretation of the primary source. I am making straightforward, descriptive statements of facts (4 of them) that can be verified by an educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I am in compliance with the policy. (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It isn't straightforward to me. RGloucester 03:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I made 4 statements of fact. Which one is not straightforward? Did you watch the video? I don't see that any educated person could watch that video and say that the fire was accidently started by the men on the roof. To make such a claim after seeing the primary evidence smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Go to 5:45 and you can see it pretty clearly. They even cheer when they manage to succeed in getting a Molotov through the window. (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I saw the video. It was shaky, and blurry. I couldn't understand what people were saying, as I don't speak the languages spoken in Ukraine. I saw the fire, and I saw petrol bombs, but I did not really see where they were coming from, and saw them going in multiple directions. None of it was clear, as the camerawork was crap. There is nothing definitive about that video, at all, and 'fact' is not necessarily what it seems, given that the lens of that camera only captured a small part of what was actually going on. Regardless, the particular phrase you cited refers to what an 'official report says', not to what necessarily happened. RGloucester 03:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
#3 and #4 are far from fact. There is no way to establish that the fire to the building was intentional (intent could have been to scare, to hit a pro-russian, as revernge as they were throwing their own at the crowd, to hit a gunman, etc.) #4 is entirely made up, as there is nothing to determine that all escaping were shot - in fact, no news reports mention any shootings taking place afterward. The video presented also doesn't show the main fires on the front, and doesnt show how that 2nd story fire started, and focuses on the side of the building apart from the main action --Львівське (говорити) 03:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Would it help if I give you a bad example to compare to? If I were to say that the gunshots at 17:50 resulted in the bullet ridden bodies you see crowded around the building exit at 18:45 that would be an interpretation that cannot be verified. You cannot make that connection without making an interpretation. However, if I say the Pro-Europeans clearly threw Molotovs into the building at 5:45 that is a straightforward statement of fact which can be verified by an educated person without further specialized knowledge. Do you see the difference?
On item 3: If the petrol bombs at 5:45 aren't clear enough you can look again at 8:30. If you don't agree that they actually did start the fire, would you at least agree that they were throwing petrol bombs at the building with the intention of starting a fire? Or do you propose they were throwing the petrol bombs with some other intent?
On item 4: The fat guy is clearly shooting at the windows after they firebomb the building starting around 6:00 and continuing for some time. There is no return gunfire (again, a clear statement of fact that you can verify). After 10 minutes there is clearly a spurt of gunfire at 17:50. As the police approach the building you see number of injured or dead laying around the exit of the trade building at 18:45. I would say that it is not clear what actually caused their injuries (it may have been gunsho, jumping from the building, the fire, smoke inhalation, or a combination of these). (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw petrol bombs being thrown into the building. I also saw some come from above, though. That's the thing, though. We can't even be having this debate, as that would be interpretation, and hence WP:Original research. RGloucester 03:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
exactly --Львівське (говорити) 03:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
What debate? We all agree they were throwing petrol bombs at the building. We all agree we don't know how the fires were started. There is consensus.
I actually found the video of what happened to the people at the entrance to the building :( It's upsetting enough I won't link it here out of respect. (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The article already says the petrol bombs were thrown by both sides. We don't know how the fire stated, and that article says that it is unclear. As far as people being shot, the video shows guns being fired, but it doesn't show if anyone was actually hit. Also, we don't have good enough of a view to see whether gun shots were fired at other places around the building (the building is big). Also, the video started later than when the people on the roof were supposed to have started firing. The only thing that might be clear to me in the video is that, at the time that video was taking place, the situation on the ground outside the building was safe enough that rand bystander people were milling around. However, as I said, that was much later than when the people on the roof were supposed to be shooting. Anyway, like I said, all my statements here qualify as total WP:Original research and can't be used. RGloucester 04:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. "4 is entirely made up, as there is nothing to determine that all escaping were shot - in fact, no news reports mention any shootings taking place afterward"
It is not made up. There is video of fatty shooting at the building. He was shooting at the building while protesters in the building tried to escape the fire. How can he shoot at a building full of protesters and not be shooting at the protesters? That is almost as ridiculous as your earlier claim that they were throwing petrol bombs at a building full of protesters but they had no intention of setting it on fire. Obviously, they were just playing a the traditional Ukraine game of 'toss the fire bomb' and things just got a little out of hand. Oh, those pranksters! (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was already reported and already put in the article once, BBC stated that Russia Today has shown a video of a person shooting. Of course this was removed from the article. Here's is a GRAPHIC video of people who tried to escape being beaten(caution this is not safe video and graphic) [7] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the video I didn't want to post. It is truly heart-breaking :( Note: You can clearly hear gunfire at the start of the video right before those hanging from the building start to fall to the ground. These gunshots appear to correspond to the gunshots that can be heard 17:50 in the longer video. (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This video does not show anyone being beaten. It's a shaky-cam that shows some people falling and some people holding sticks and not much else. --Львівське (говорити) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It clearly shows a man administrating several blows to person laying down at 06-09 seconds of the video with a long tool, shots are heard, and a group of men wielding long poles are running to people who fell down and are helpless. Screams of pain are heard after that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw 'someone shooting'. However, 'someone shooting' doesn't necessarily correspond with someone getting shot. For all we know, he was just shooting at windows. We can't tell from the video. You are leaping to conclusions in a total original research manner. RGloucester 13:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Members of right sector and hooligans deliberately set the buinding on fire and mirdered in cold blood whoever tried to escape by jumping A collections of pics and some of the vids follows in this link To user named Львівське Stop spreading your POV and stop insulting murdered people's souls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what propaganda blogs bring to the discussion. --Львівське (говорити) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The bit about beatings has been added, as it is sourced. The NY Times also reported that the pro-Ukraine protesters shouted 'burn, Colorado, burn', so that has now been added as well. As far as 'deliberately set on fire', that still isn't certain. However, we do know that both sides threw petrol bombs. RGloucester 15:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

An additional western media providing sources that proves the intentional murder of people in Odessa The incident should not listed as 'Odessa clashes' but 'Odessa massacre' Gradually there is a convergence between Russian and Western media about that Perhaps only Lvivske still believes the opposite...i do hope wikipedians will change the entire article-name,content etc It would be useful to make a list of the murdered civilians and politicians by the right sector's neonazis-just there was a separate list of maydan protestors murdered by snipers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"civilians and politicians by the right sector's neonazis" - yeah, I stopped reading at that point, but I should have stopped sooner. --Львівське (говорити) 15:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainіan activist tells about intention to murder

11 sec. "And now we have to burn this building together with them" (original in Russian) Cathry (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

nice original research, you should start a livejournal and expose everything. --Львівське (говорити) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Transnistria stuff

while it's locked just want to post notes for possible inclusion here:

former military officer Alexander Sadovnichy - "studies in Tiraspol, Transnistria" / ""Rudakova-Grizlo said that many more classmates would have come from Tiraspol for the funeral but that men with Russian passports were unable to cross the border into Ukraine, so she had come alone." --Львівське (говорити) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


In the infobox it previously said this was between pro and anti 'euromaidan' groups, despite euromaidan being over and odessa never being a stronghold for maidan. Now RG has made it "Confrontation between supporters and opponents of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution" - is this not original research? This implies that one side was pro-government and the other is pro-yanukovych. All we know from the sources and reporting is that one side was rallying for national unity (apolitical) and the other side attacked and was pro-russian / st. george ribbon wearing --Львівське (говорити) 20:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear in sources that one group supports the present government, and another doesn't. It is possible to be 'anti-revolution' or 'anti-government' without being pro-Yanukovych. RGloucester 20:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
However, one could change it to 'Support and opposition to a united Ukraine'. RGloucester 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
well can you show me a source where the group was described as pro government or pro revolution? Being for a united country doesn't necessarily make one in favor of the revolution or anti Party of Regions, for example. Your second suggestion seems more in line with my understanding of the events.—Львівське (говорити) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have seen sources as such, however, the compromise is perhaps more concise, so I've put it in. RGloucester 23:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I do see that RFE calls them 'pro-Russian separatists and supporters of the government in Kyiv' --Львівське (говорити) 23:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

|Львівське] how much do you get paid to butcher wikipedia with your biased views?AzraeL9128 (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • [9] Interior Ministry investigation says now that Euromaidan protesters werent responsible for the fire. They say the fire (I presume they mean the one that caused the deaths, since there were several fires) started on the upper floors. Says that they believe the fire started by accident when flammable liquids combusted (some sort of molotov making accident? dropped?), and that despite what the article currently says about finding weapons, they did find weapons in the building. My translation may be off but it also says none died of gunshot wounds inside contrary to other reports, and most suffocated; also says there werent clashes inside (i dont think?) --Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • There is a local TV news report of the clashes on YouTube, with an English-language transcript available here. The report concludes:
April 2 in Odessa the people were burned alive and those who tried to escape were finished off with sticks. Besides as it appeared later among the dead there were lots of people with gunshot wounds. And moreover the police even didn’t think to interfere. All in all the facts lead to one conclusion. The reason of this tragedy in Odessa is a provocation in order to disperse and arrest the members of a numerous protests on the Kulikovo Pole against acting authorities. The fans were just used for this. On both sides there were skilful instigators. Considering all in all there was hardly anyone to plan the massacre but the crowd excited by the blood and impunity couldn’t stop.
Herzen (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: That is not a local news report, as I'm sure you're aware. That's Russian state media, Channel One Russia --Львівське (говорити) 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Would like to add: "Photos taken show some corpses intoxicated by the fumes, with no burn marks. However, on most of the bodies only the face and hands are burned. Other parts of the body and clothing are often intact, and there is no sign of fire in the room. Some bodies had been dragged along the ground." Source: BloodofIndependence (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


At least three journalists were shot over the weekend and others assaulted while covering deadly clashes

Pyotr Rakul, reporter for online news portal Info-Center, was shot in his left leg on Sunday. According to a report by Info-Center, Rakul was shot by a local police officer despite wearing a yellow vest marked "Press." It is unclear if Rakul's attacker was identified and apprehended.

On Sunday, pro-Russia activists roughed up Nataliya Tarasovskaya, journalist for the independent broadcaster Channel 5, and her cameramen as the TV crew was about to start reporting on air, news reports said.

--Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)