Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes

Discussion

Issue with the stated involvement of Russian nationals and Transdnestrian nationals. This has not been verified as accurate and many articles are not pushing that information. Even the BBC, like here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27275383. I say that the involvement of those parties be removed until further verification. Much like how forces found Right Sector ID card recently near Slavyansk. -BloodofIndependence — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodofIndependence (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not the good name. Clashes started near the "Sobornaya Square", then moved to the "Grecheskaya Square", and ended there. Trade Union House was set aflame in revenge a few hours later. Барон Суббота (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Haven't written here before so hope I don't mess up the system. Just wanted to say that reports that those burned to death were Russian or Moldaovian citizens is BS. According to Kyiv Post they were all local residents: http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/odessa-who-is-to-blame-for-46-odessa-deaths-346817.html . According to ITAR-TASS they were of both sexes and between 18 and 62 years old. http://en.itar-tass.com/world/730551 This point in the article should be changed. Symonenko (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Symonenko

 Done — RGloucester — ☎ 23:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I watched it unfold, there was no real break in the action. As rioters were pushed back by the crowds, and the police re-sided with the pro-Ukraine crowd, things just shifted to the square. I don't see how there was a split and that this latter part was revenge, it was all part of a fluid back and forth conflict and the fire was the knock out punch. --Львівське (говорити) 23:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske: I'm not sure if I agree with deletion, even though I usually would. This event is very significant, and has a large amount of coverage. We could explain the events step-by-step here, and I think that might be useful. That way, the unrest article doesn't get too clogged up with nitty-gritty. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the prod then if we're going to stick with the article. --Львівське (говорити) 23:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the basic problem we have here is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a news source, which makes it ill equipped to deal with unfolding events. This could be significant/notable. Or not; we've seen a big proliferation of articles, some of them not so notable or ones which would better work as part of more general articles on this conflict. My guess is that "once the dust clears" (whenever that happens) a lot of the more minor split-offs should be merged into other articles. But as events on the ground unfold it's a little hard to predict which ones will merit notability and which ones won't. That's why I've very much hesitated getting involved in all the delete discussions. I'd give it a day or two and if more stuff happens then I'll remove the prod, but if not then it makes sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the timeline.

http://timer.od.ua/news/storonniki_evromaydana_i_ul_tras_marshiruyut_po_odesse_vozmojni_besporyadki_translyatsiya_699.html

18:27. End of the clases on Grecheskaya Square.

19:08. Ultras decide to go to Kuliovoye Pole to destroy camp.

19:25 Clashes on Kulikovoye Pole

19:36 Setin the building afire.

@Lvivske: Do you think it has potential as an article, or is it not worth it? RGloucester — ☎ 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm split. On one hand 30+ died and that in of itself seems notable and memorable during the conflict as its the bloodiest (well, deadliest, they died of inhalation) day since the February sniper massacre. On the other hand it was just one day and we could probably keep all pertinent info in a paragraph or two on the main article. As for the title of this article, it seems OR as no one is going to google "sobornaya square clashes"—Львівське (говорити) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't OR, so much as it is a neutral descriptive title per WP:NDESC. We can't say 'Odessa clashes', as that is too vague. Given that the riots began in the square, this makes the most sense to me. That can change, though. I'm less concerned about that, and more concerned about the article. I feel like the events that took place perhaps deserve more justice than can be done in the main article, like a play-by-play, given the murkiness of it all. However, if you think we should merge it back in and redirect, that's fine with me too. RGloucester — ☎ 23:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is Odessa too vague? I think it's fine —Львівське (говорити) 00:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'm defeated, but it isn't like one called 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots '2014 Kiev riots'. It is best to be precise. The clashes didn't take place across the whole city or oblast. They took place in a specific area. So long as we are constructing a title from scratch, it seems to make sense to be descriptive. RGloucester — ☎ 00:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Two things about Hru: a) Euromaidan was ongoing and it was an offshoot of it, so Kiev would be too broad, that article was specifically about the clashes on that street and not Kiev as a whole, b) the name Hrushevskoho was thrown around a lot in sources, making it easy.—Львівське (говорити) 00:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen Sobornaya thrown about, that's why I was using that, as that was where the original Ukrainian protests was. It doesn't matter though. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think, 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes is better solution because clashes were at the different streets and squares of the city. NickSt (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose. I have a feeling that the common name will come to be something to do with the Trade Unions building, but we can leave that for later. For now, let's get this article up and running if we are going to keep it. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What about calling it the May 2 2014 Odessa Massacre? ' Massacre is also a verb that means to kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, especially brutally and indiscriminately. ' from Massacre. I would consider the event to be a massacre, due in part to the brutal nature of the deaths, as well as the number of dead. Some sources have already called it a massacre. User:BloodofIndependence — Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Clearly what is going to be remembered about the events in Odessa on this day is the massacre. "Clashes" happen all the time; scores of people getting burned alive as the result of violence in contrast is an unusual and notable occurrence. – Herzen (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Massacre is a POV title, as don't know who conclusively started the fire. We only know for fact that the 6 Ukrianian deaths were 'massacred' by the Russians in the streets, but not those who died in the fire, who likely were killed by accident.--Львівське (говорити) 01:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Miriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of massacre -"the violent killing of many people". I would say that this fits the dictionary definition, no POV problem involved. Did a bunch of people die at a single instance for no reason? Yes. That's what I would call a massacre. I would call the February Kiev events a massacre as well. "Massacre is also a verb that means to kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, especially brutally and indiscriminately. The first known use for this meaning was in 1588." It's also possible NOT calling an event a massacre when it fits, fits a POV that condones? or belittles violent acts. I would think that Wikipedia is the kind of website that does not support violence. --[User:BloodofIndependence] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodofIndependence (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This implies murder. People dying from smoke inhalation from a fire they started is not "violent killing" --Львівське (говорити) 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You think you have a better understanding of what happened than a local news reporter? To quote from the o1.ua report I gave a link to below in the "Causes" section:

the Maidan fighters were also inside the building. Here they demonstrate the Ukrainian flag in the window followed by the crowd approval. And here are other pictures made some minutes later. You can see that in that very window at the 3d floor the fire starts. At that very moment the governor Vladimir Nemirovsky actually gives the fighter the licence for murder [лицензию на убийство]:

“The actions of Odessa inhabitants aimed at neutralization and detention of armed terrorists are considered to be valid”

As we have already told the majority of those who came to fire the building of Trade-unions were not from Odessa

Herzen (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger

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)

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.
• 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.
• Thirty-one people died whilst trapped in the burning Trade Unions House. Those who survived were cruelly beaten by Right Sector radicals with batons.
• 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".
• 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".

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, the mainstream western media is being ambiguous about the causes of the tragedy and who is behind deadly Odessa blaze. 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)

Russian language page ?

Does anyone have an eye on the russian language page ? Considering the scale of Russian state- propoganda, I would be suprised if the Russian Wikipedia articles on this topic were not biased as well. Anybody round here read russian and could give an idea of what the article there looks like? (I guess changing it to a more neutral version may be difficult). Hmm 188.98.179.224 (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The russian language wikipedia has a section on events that occured before the fire(none of it is interesting). It goes into a little more detail on what exactly occurred on the day. I decided to translate this part, so people can see the difference in bias, and hopefully make this article better. Afterwards the article mentions the reaction of ukrainian/russian news sources and politicians, most of it is idiotic(e.g. The clashes were instigated by putin, ukraine planted military men in the protest). Anyway here is the part I translated: year 2014, 3 pm. Euromaidan supporters with fans of football clubs chernomorez and metalist organized a mach"for ukrainian unity" on sobornoy plaza. Apart from the slogan "for ukrainian unity, there was a slogan "knife the moskals" and others. The Euromaidan activists were wearing masks and carrying bats, rocks and holding shields. At 3pm there were 1500 aggresive people. At the same time came around 500 armed federalists came from kulikovo field. The clashes progressed to deripasovskoi street, on which both sides were throwing molotov cocktails. A member of the "for ukrainian unity" march recieved a fatal injury, and died before the ambulance arrived. Later around 200 pro russian activists were blocked on grechevskoi street, they were defended by the local police. Some of the federalists were shooting guns. Part of the the federalists moved to the afina shopping center and created defensive positions.Pro ukrainian activists pushed the activists to kulikova field, where they ransacked and burned their tents. Federalists hid inside the trade union building, which was positioned behind their tents. Federalists were throwing molotov cocktails from the roof of the trade union. Explosions were heard. Pro ukrainian activists were also throwing molotov cocktails one of which went inside the building causing a fire.Fire spread to a couple of floors, which was helped by the lateness of the fire brigade. After the arrival of the fire brigade, ukrainian nationalist and right sector activists hampered their job. They were yelling "russians burn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.116.123.145 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The Russian language article in its current state looks quite non-biased. Note that "Russian language page" does not mean "Russian state page", fortunately Russian Wikipedia has not (yet) been taken over by Kremlin propaganda machine. Also note that almost all Ukrainian citizens know Russian language, half of them are native Russian speakers, and not so many of them share pro-Russian views. Also, in Russia there is a certain percentage of sane people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that English Wikipedia has not (yet) been taken over by Kiev's Hunta propaganda machine. But very funny that a resident of Ukraine decided to assess the number of savvy in Russia. by Topic: I would suggest to remove from the card "Russian nationalists". Since the link says only about three detained Russian citizens, without affiliation to any organization. 188.114.49.230 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Vlad Sh

Guys, aren't you all tired of parroting the term "hunta"? You look really stupid doing this. Try to diversify you lexicon a bit. And it's spelled as "junta" btw. (Nothing personal, just noting the first-hand demonstration of the power of Russian brainwashing machine.)

Ехал хунта через хунта

Видит хунта: хунта хунта

Хунта хунта хунта хунта

Хунта хунта хунта хунта — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but just people with brains washed propaganda everywhere see "KGB" "GRU" "FSB". "Junta" is just one of the terms for the current government in Kiev. Keep yourself in the hands. 109.165.17.54 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Vlad Sh

Using the term "junta" incorrectly just shows a lack of understanding of the topic IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 05:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias

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

http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1337991-v-militsiyi-nazivayut-domislami-informatsiyu-pro-nibito-zagiblikh-v-odesi-rosiyan-i-pridnistrovtsiv

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 beated to death by protesters. Here is the link. http://otkat.od.ua/v-bolnice-skonchalsya-odesskij-deputat-postradavshij-na-kulikovom-pole/

Sorry, i cant change this myself, because my English is poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барон Суббота (talk • contribs) 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je1neAJT4Hs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.66.228.194 (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 

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)

Image

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)

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 83.23.180.243 (talk) 14:39, 5 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)

Causes

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)

• [5] 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: http://counterinformation.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/crime-in-odessa/ BloodofIndependence (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is a redirect?

What the hell? RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 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. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27265854 --2.242.218.182 (talk) 09:18, 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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 unian.net, 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)

Proposal

@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. 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. Another report by BBC News claimed that the situation was unclear, and that both sides had been throwing petrol bombs. 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. 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.

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

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27275383

A BBC report about what happened in Odessa.--2.243.21.171 (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)

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. [6] 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! [7] --Львівське (говорити) 07:25, 5 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)

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 http://tvxs.gr/news/kosmos/mia-sygklonistiki-martyria-gia-ti-neonazistiki-sfagi-tis-odissoy There are protests against the far-right violent groups which control Ukraine right now http://www.kar.org.gr/2014/05/05/%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%B3%CE%B3%CF%8D%CE%B7-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%8C/ in Athens This is the link with several vids showing the murder of people who were jumping from the building http://www.antenna.gr/news/World/article/346110/ntokoymento-bias-apo-to-makeleio-tis-odissoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 (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 188.4.90.119 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Btw this the wiki article for Antena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANT1_Group I am waiting now the guy named Lvivske to edit this article too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.90.119 (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' http://eu.greekreporter.com/2014/05/04/greek-diplomatic-missions-in-ukraine-stay-alert/ 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 anything...you did not see anything... At the end of the day it is NOT lvivskepedia

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)

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 173.79.251.253 (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.

• Watch for yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je1neAJT4Hs

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.

173.79.251.253 (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. 173.79.251.253 (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. 173.79.251.253 (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). 173.79.251.253 (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. 173.79.251.253 (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! 173.79.251.253 (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) [8] --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. 173.79.251.253 (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 http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1570374.html?thread=142067782#t142067782 To user named Львівське Stop spreading your POV and stop insulting murdered people's souls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 (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 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/ukraine-claims-30-pro-russia-separatists-killed 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 62.1.241.32 (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)

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)

_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" http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2014/05/140504_ukraine_odessa_after_the_fire.shtml 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)

The 36

A list has been released by a source saying the 36 who died in the building or thereabouts. It's unconfirmed by authorities so I'm not sure if we can use it. The list also doesn't specify if they were only pro-Russians or if this is just 36 of the 46 identified so far. According to the list only one died of burns, which I guess dismisses all those photos of people burned to death found on the Russian blogosphere and twitter. Also, most died of smoke inhalation which lines up with other reports already out in the press. --Львівське (говорити) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske - they might be dismissing it because of photo analysis of the bodies. A lot of people see the building have little fire damage, barricades erected (no fire damage), people burnt only above the torso. A pregnant woman presumably strangled. A woman with no pants that is assumed tho have been raped. There are also bodies with bullet wounds to the face. They analyze the photos and conclude people did not die from the fire.

one dead is government official Vyacheslav Markin [9] --Львівське (говорити) 00:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This source of Odessa news says the Odessa Regional Council deputy says 116 died in the fire. [10] is this possible or reported elsewhere? can it be verified? --Львівське (говорити) 02:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• [11] 48 are still missing, should be in the infobox --Львівське (говорити) 06:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• [12] interfax says 38/46 identified officially, and 3 missing, not lining up with the 48 above --Львівське (говорити) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• [13] 42 named confirmed of the dead now via UAPravda --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

conspiracy theories

This article tries to debunk a bunch of the theories, like the pic floating around of the pregnant woman [14] --Львівське (говорити) 14:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your argument makes a big assumption: That the bodies of those who died from smoke inhalation could not be burnt.

So let's see: 5 died from gunshot wounds. 8 died from falling. 2 died from poisoning? 1 died from burns. 20 died from gas poisoning. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert edit (2)

Why do you delete this?:

Chief editor of Dumskaya.net (regional Odessa media), who was injured during clashes, says that police did not interview him and other injured eyewitnesses http://dumskaya.net/news/glavred-dumskoj-miliciya-ne-rassleduet-sobytiya--035422/. Cathry (talk) 00:51, 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 http://vesti.ua/odessa/50433-odesskaja-hatyn-kak-jeto-bylo-na-samom-dele 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)

Report Львівське andRGloucester — ☎

This isn't going anywhere constructive and the OP has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Proposal to curb over-reliance on Ukrainian coverage

I find this and other related articles extremely dependent on the POV of the Ukrainian side. I therefore started a thread at the RSN.--Kathovo talk 13:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you name a specific source used that you have an issue with? There are a lot of English language sources used in the article. Painting with broad strokes and saying "stop using ukrainian news on an event in ukraine" won't really go anywhere. --Львівське (говорити) 15:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Examples and rationale are presented at WP:RSN#Ukrainian based sources coverage of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis.--Kathovo talk 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You provided no direct examples or rationale. Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Львівське (говорити) 15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't like that the article is extremely one-sided.--Kathovo talk 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. --Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• This article is not at all one-sided. Everything is verified in western sources, reports about the 'burn, Colorado, burn' and beatings are included. That there were camouflaged men participating with sticks and shields on the Ukrainian side is reported. That Right Sector was there is included. If we were 'extremely one sided', none of that would be in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, joke of the day: "Everything is verified in western sources". "western sources" == how the Department of State prefers to put things == one-sided. 5.12.156.245 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More or less the story Lvivske is trying to present as 'truth' is as follows pro-Russian terrorists and some foreigners attacked a 'much larger' pro-'Ukrainian' rally, then they hided themselves in a building...which they did set on fire in order to commit suicide...Oh Mondieu... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's like you can read my mind! --Львівське (говорити) 22:56, 6 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: [15] [16]

"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)

Police scandal

[17] Attorney General says it was a planned action and theres the investigation on the police inaction or collaboration, which should probably be added to the overall investigation. I don't think the current article talks enough about the role of police in the events. --Львівське (говорити) 20:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• [18]

Ukraine’s Minister of Interior Arsen Avakov reported that former chief of Odessa oblast police Dmytro Fuchedzhi has been placed on a wanted list.

“Mr Fuchedzhi crossed the state border of Ukraine at 5 am this morning and is now a fugitive from justice; he has been placed on a wanted list”, said Avakov to journalists gathered at Kharkiv airport on Wednesday, May 7.

He also reported that prosecution bodies have detained three police officers in connection with pretrial investigation into Odessa events, and they are now being transported to Kyiv for interrogation.

--Львівське (говорити) 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• former police officer involved / arrested, just archiving this source [19] --Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Identity of the likely killers

I am aware of the intensity of the debate here, the unreliability of using direct sources (videos or victims' testimonies) and Wikipedians reasonable subjective (read the disclosure above) and objective abhorrence of blogs, LiveJournal or otherwise, as sources. However, given the continuous stonewalling of the official Kiev's investigation into the identity of the February 2014 Maidan snipers three months after the event, I am suggesting that we actively search for third-party major news agencies mentioning the very serious and substantiated allegations listed and partly substantiated by amateur sleuths.

(After much thought, I decided not to list them here, to avoid offending the sensibilities and using Wikipedia as a forum for repeating these allegations].

However, I need to list at least one such allegation: a "National Anticorruption Portal" article and a Russian Wiki Reality record, both archived by me now - I really need to reference the latter here, sorry for overriding the Wiki blacklist thereby.

Why?

IMHO, the smoking gun is the official TV report "Андрей Парубий подарил добровольцам одесской самообороны современные бронежилеты", published on 29 Apr 2014, thus BEFORE the massacre, by the Взгляд из Одессы news agency, of Andriy Volodymyrovych Parubiy meeting and shaking hands with the infamous sotnik Nikolai Volkov (НИКОЛАЙ ВОЛКОВ), a confirmed criminal sought by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine since 2012 (see its archive thereof that I have just created in case it is gone too soon). Because this official search notice and the TV report may soon disappear from the Web, I am quoting the latter's YT description: "Секретарь Совета национальной безопасности и обороны Украины подарил добровольцам, дежурящим на патриотических блок-постах на въезде в Одессу современные бронежилеты 5-го класса защиты.", quick translation: "the secretary of the Internal Affairs Ministry provides the volunteers manning the patriotic roadblocks at the entrance to Odessa the modern vests of the fifth protection class" (whatever they may be), see 0:54 and later. As many of you have seen, Mr Volkov was clearly recorded shooting into the anti-Maidan side (another fresh archive, just in case).

(FYI, I was trying to alert the Ministry thereof, informing them that "I found your fugitive - only last week he was shaking hands, consulting and receiving protective gear from your bosses", but they provide only phone numbers for the contact, while my Ukrainian is not up to scratch yet. A Ukrainian speaker may thus wish to call the Ministry ("tel. 048-779-49-61") about it, on my behalf, to perform her civic duty. <Irony off and common sense on> )

(Zezen (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)).

Even if Volkov was somehow involved, what does this all prove? Just a bunch of grasping at straws and original research. Also, not sure what you mean about stonewalling because the Kiev investigation into the snipers has been ongoing and transparent. --Львівське (говорити) 18:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Volkov aside, I proved that Parubiy was in cahoots with the shooters. A picture speaks louder than words: here is a screenshots of this Parubiy's meeting the alleged shooter, a confirmed fugitive criminal (see the official source above), discussing the tactics: http://oi57.tinypic.com/2z8n2uq.jpg. Later Volkov is even given the vest.

See the film for a fuller picture. It is direct evidence, in high res, of Volkov working together and planning events with Parubiy. Zezen (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

this is all original research and theories --Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector involvement?

Can we get some more definitive sourcing here? Officially, Right Sector isn't actively involved in militant ops in the south and east of ukraine [20], but obviously individual members can be anywhere in a personal capacity. The BBC source used says [21] "Some were veteran supporters of Kiev's Maidan protest movement - the Maidan Self Defence Forces - and/or part of the right-wing Pravy Sektor (Right Sector)." So from this source it's not clear "they were either self defense or right sector" essentially. This is stated mater of factly in the article, and has no other sources. We need to remove this 'theory' without something more concrete from a reliable source. --Львівське (говорити) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

From the local TV news report I gave a link to in the "Causes" section:

According to the police staff there in the crowd were two battalions of police – “East” and “Storm” recently staffed with nationalists from Right Sector in civil clothes....

The fighters from Right Sector were the first to enter the building and they started at once to seek for the documents of the dead.

Herzen (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• The BBC report says that Right Sector members participated in some sense, and it isn't in a quotation. That tends to support inclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

it says self defense OR right sector, which tells me the writer drew broad conclusions on the fact they were armed with bats. That conspiracy sites are talking bout the New York Times "covering up the fascists" tells me that western source aren't talking about right sector involvement for a reason. —Львівське (говорити) 00:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can question the BBC, which is a known and authoritative source. The Daily Beast also has vague references to Right Sector. It strikes me as odd. RGloucester — ☎ 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

all I'm asking for is a definitive statement (not 'either or' or 'some were interviewed after') —Львівське (говорити) 01:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can find nothing definitive other than the BBC, that isn't Russian. However, given that both the BBC and Russian sources are printing it, I believe it should remain. I have a feeling that WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS might be involved. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• im googling and only seeing russian owned sites talking about right sector, surely a single other major newspaper picked up on this? --Львівське (говорити) 00:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This local Russian language but pro-Kiev newspaper has this to say:

In Odessa, the main separatist "nest" has been burned down

The tent city of pro-Russian activists on Kulikova field no longer exists. After the events in the center of the city patriots of Odessa, members of the "Right Sector", and football fans liquidated tents of the separatists and their stage.

Since this newspaper is definitely not pro-Russia, it has no reason to report that Right Sector was involved unless that was true. – Herzen (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

how is that "pro-kiev"? It's a news source saying "brave pro-russian activists" thats hardly "pro-kiev". This is another misrepresentation of the source by you today.--Львівське (говорити) 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you imagine you see anti-Ukrainian bias in every Russian language text you run across? That story nowhere mentions "brave pro-Russian activists". In fact, the story characterizes them as cowardly:

Despite the fact that pro-Russian activists were preparing for the arrival, at the first sign of danger most of them fled.

That's straight Google translate. And then there's this story: Chief of the Crimean Police Embraces the Head Separatist. Clearly, the point is that the reason that police stepped aside and allowed the clashes to take place is that their head was sympathetic to the separatists. Again, hardly Russian propaganda. And finally there is this: In Odessa, billboards have appeared saying: "No to separatism!" Russian propaganda calls pro-Russian Ukrainians pro-federalist; Ukrainian propaganda calls them seperatists. Thus, this newspaper is clearly pro-Kiev. – Herzen (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I second this. Taking into account that now Right Sector has become more a mythologem than a real organization (since its pretty marginal influence is highly exaggerated, especially by Russian media, so that now, when we see Right Sector mentioned in any news source, we take it with a great distrust), it should be carefully considered whether Right Sector should be listed among the parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to include Russian (or any other) claims of Right Sector presence if Ukrainian claims of Transnistrian citizens are freely taken into account. So far both sides have come up with unsubstantiated claims therefore if Right Sector presence should be omitted, so should be the claimed presence of foreign nationals. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. Maybe separate the obvious parties (i.e. pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian activists) from presumable ones (the rest)? E.g. move the latters to a separate "Claimed parties" list or mark them as "claimed"? P.S. It's me again, different IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.30.100 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm for this too. We can't simply omit Ukrainian and Russian sources, they may be biased but that doesn't mean they're unreliable. I suggest anything below pro-unity and pro-Russian demonstrators to be listed as "Claimed support" or "Claimed participants". - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've requested an edit, see below. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would agree to a 'claimed' for both bits. Should I ask for an edit request? RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• [22] SNA says they are Right Sector were there 'defending' the march, a primary source but it's all I got--Львівське (говорити) 02:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

At official Right Sector website "Так, бійці «Правого сектора» та інші українські патріоти понесли втрати вбитими та пораненими. Проте втрати серед російських терористів були набагато більшими, а саме явище «сепаратистів» у Одесі зникло як фактор. Усе це – заслуга об’єднаної патріотичними почуттями громадськості." "Yes, the men "the right sector" and other Ukrainian patriots suffered losses in killed and wounded. However, the toll of Russian terrorists were much higher, namely the phenomenon of "separatists" in Odessa disappeared as a factor. All this - the merit of a united patriotic feelings of the public."

http://pravyysektor.info/articles/ato-po-narodnomu-abo-chomu-ne-vladimir-putin-ne-vviv-vijska/ http://archive.today/y12mT

Some hate speech more "May 2, 2014 was another bright page of our national history. During this day, despite the efforts of the MUP, indifferent public abolished the putin Sabbath and ordinary mercenaries degenerates in Odessa."

So, they obviously took part in clashes and murder and are proud of it. Cathry (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that clinches it. Львівське started this section, saying he could find no confirmation that Right Sector was involved, whereas all he had to do was go to Right Sector's own Web site! He usually has no trouble citing Ukrainian-language Web sites. GF? – Herzen (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of intentionally ignoring Right Sector's website when I literally just posted info saying they were involved? --Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This may sound ridiculous, but actually Right Sector's claim about their participation does NOT prove their participation IMO. It could easily be self-PR, or a conscious information provocation. It's really a very merky, controversial organization. Basically no one saw them doing anything in real life, yet they constantly show themselves up in media scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, that's your personal POV and unsourced Original research. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Any objections if I (or any other administrator) would replace the link St. George Ribbon with Ribbon of Saint George and solve the two links to disambigs? It should be pretty much uncontroversial I hope.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

All three  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainіan activist tells about intention to murder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF-pU3o28s8

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)

Protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Please change the infobox to include the 'claimed', as discussed above. I will provide the code here:

Extended content

2 May clashes in Odessa Part of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine Date 2 May 2014 Location Odessa, Ukraine Caused by Opposition and support for the Donetsk insurgency Confrontation between supporters and opponents of the post-Maidan Ukrainian government Methods Running battles Demonstrations Resulted in Trade Union House badly damaged Pro-Russian protest camp burnt down Parties Pro-Ukrainian unity demonstrators Claimed: Right Sector Pro-Russian activists/militants Claimed: Russian nationals from Transnistria Russian nationals Casualties and losses Deaths: 6 Deaths: 40 Total casualties: 46 dead and 214 injured Arrests: 172

RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to wait a bit and then edit if no objections emerge.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

why does this get filed under claimed if its in official police reports? with passports produced to the public? --Львівське (говорити) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it is disputed by many western sources, which refer to 'claims' (such as in that BBC article that mentions Right Sector). RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with this edit.BloodofIndependence (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector was not "claimed". Their official site confirms their involvement At official Right Sector website "Так, бійці «Правого сектора» та інші українські патріоти понесли втрати вбитими та пораненими. Проте втрати серед російських терористів були набагато більшими, а саме явище «сепаратистів» у Одесі зникло як фактор. Усе це – заслуга об’єднаної патріотичними почуттями громадськості." "Yes, the men "the right sector" and other Ukrainian patriots suffered losses in killed and wounded. However, the toll of Russian terrorists were much higher, namely the phenomenon of "separatists" in Odessa disappeared as a factor. All this - the merit of a united patriotic feelings of the public." http://pravyysektor.info/articles/ato-po-narodnomu-abo-chomu-ne-vladimir-putin-ne-vviv-vijska/ http://archive.today/y12mT

Cathry (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that, at least until Cathry is blocked for destructive editing, there is no consensus to implement the change. I am unwatching the page anyway, please feel free to add a new request once consensus has been achieved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"is blocked for destructive editing" be so kind to describe my "destructive editing" with links Cathry (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

New information from the OSCE

The latest daily update from the OSCE has included some information about the Odessa fire:

The Head of the Regional Bureau of Forensics informed the SMM that a total of 46 bodies had been transferred to the its morgue, among whom were five people shot dead in the clashes at Soborna street, and 41 other fatalities in Kulikove Pole. According to the interlocutor, the majority of the deceased have already been identified as mostly from Odessa and the neighbouring regions. The final report of the forensic investigation is expected to be finalised in about one month’s time.

— Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

I'm not sure about 'neighbouring regions', as Transnistria does neighbour Odessa Oblast, but it seems like the idea of a stream of Transnistrians participating has been disproven. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

well there were two claims, one that they were among the dead (i guess disproven) and separately that they were among the arrested. Of course, many more were arrested than killed. --Львівське (говорити) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the 'claimed' bit in the infobox will resolve this issue, as it is still 'claimed' that they participated even if they were not among the dead. We'll have to late for the final report. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess my concern would be putting 'claimed' in and then when the final report is issued, others go "it's just the Ukrainian authorities claiming, they're lying" (I have ESP) --Львівське (говорити) 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, these are not even 'Ukrainian authorities', but regional authorities. I don't think they have any interest in lying, and if they really wanted to stir the pot, they'd say that many of the dead were Transnistrians. If the OSCE gives credence to the report, given that Russia participates in the OSCE, it is hard to say any such thing. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

well the SBU is national, these arent like state police —Львівське (говорити) 17:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about the SBU. The OSCE press release says the report will be given by the Regional Bureau of Forensics. 'Regional' meaning 'Oblast'. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske: There were definately no Transnistrians or even Russians killed. Read this Kyiv Post bit. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

good read, thanks, this article provides a lot of great info and clarity (not that we couldnt do better on our own, pfft) --Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add THIS information from the OSCE May 9th report.

"On May 9th, the city witnessed several small-scale events commemorating Victory Day. The monitoring group from the OSCE observed a group of 250 activists opposed to the Government commemorating the victims of the 2 May events; the gathering ended peacefully"

at the end of the aftermath section. Source: http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/118417 BloodofIndependence (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A minor gathering like that isn't really relevant. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Transnistria stuff

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

• [23]

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)

journalists

• [24]

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)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2014

I'd like it if an administrator would add this image to the aftermath section.

A memorial to those who died in the clashes at a barricade made of tyres in Donetsk

RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I'm fairly sure this is uncontroversial, and it would be nice to get a relevant picture into the article. Could please carry this out? RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done—Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

KyivPost interview with two anti-government survivors

Two Odessa fire survivors, both in the anti-government camp, tell their stories

A couple of useful quotes:

“The young ones said ‘We’re not leaving, we’ll be a memorial to the fact that Odessa will never be a fascist city,’” Tetiana said. “We wanted to help them; we thought if adults were there too it would be safer. It never occurred to us that they would kill us.”

“They were burning us inside on purpose and no one would let us leave,” the woman said.

Herzen (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a good article and I think shows that while the KP is pro-west provides fair coverage. Not sure what we can use from it given its witness reports and weight, and we talked about this above, but this is what I found interesting:

"They both think those on the building roof throwing Molotov cocktails, clearly seen in video footage, were not from their group. However, Alyona says protesters inside may have been making Molotov cocktails, in panic, but were not very competent and failed to throw them outside."

"they could hear people coming to attack them from the corridor. They were in camouflage and mostly wearing masks, and Alyona believes from the way they spoke that they were not from Odessa." - they were then saved by local pro-Ukrainains

But this is what I'll file under conspiracy theory (like Poroshenko talking about the chemicals and it being a false flag orchestrated to increase deaths (not endorsing the theory, just pointing this out)

“It happened immediately, there was terrible black smoke everywhere, on all the floors at once,”

" At the same time as the smoke appeared, all the lights went out. Later, the water was turned off."

"She says [THE NON LOCALS] threw gas canisters, broken glass and possibly stun grenades"

--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2014

Please add this to end of the 2nd paragraph in the "casualties" section:
It was later determined that most of those who died in the fire were from Odessa, and that a minority were from neighbouring regions.
RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @RGloucester: the page is no longer protected. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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: [25] [26] [27] 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. [28]. 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 [29]. 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 [30] 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 [31] [32] [33] 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. [34] 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." [35] 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)

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)