Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Ukraine Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 May 2014. | ![]() |
Discussion
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)
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)
- @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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Texts suppressed
Furthermore, the following texts:
- But, according to pro-Russian, they were camped from the previous day, when thousands of people in Odessa marched through its central streets on May 1, carrying placards that read “Odessa Is a Hero City”, “Referendum” and “Fascism Won’t Pass” and they decided to stay on Kulikovo Field until the authorities meet our demands for a referendum.[1]
- According the pro-Russians a mass brawl at Grecheskaya Street was instigated by football fans, Right Sector and Self-Defence radicals from Kiev, who provoked clashes with federalization supporters and later set fire to a camp at Kulikovo Field where activists collected signatures to hold a referendum.[2]
- Thirty-one people died whilst trapped in the burning Trade Unions House.[3] Those who survived were cruelly beaten by Right Sector radicals with batons.[2]
- Former governor and deputy Nikolai Skorik demands to urgently convene a session of the regional council about Friday's disorders. Regional council member and Odessa mayoral candidate Alexei Albu said that "Right Sector members who attacked the House of Trade Unions were fully equipped, armed and prepared beforehand".[2]
- Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, said that to burn people alive "are reminiscent of the crimes of the Nazis from whom the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists derive their ideological inspiration".[4]
Western media conceal who executed the slaughter
Despite clear evidence that the ultra-nationalists set Odessa’s House of Trade Unions ablaze on Friday killing dozens,[5][6] the mainstream western media is being ambiguous about the causes of the tragedy and who is behind deadly Odessa blaze.[7] This is concealment. Wikipedia can not depend only of western media but two users are deleting all traces of another version. Hhmb (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Notas
- ^ "Thousands of people in Odessa rally against Kiev's actions". ITAR-TASS. May 1, 2014.
- ^ a b c "Former Odessa governor calls for urgent convening of council meeting". ITAR-TASS. May 3, 2014.
- ^ "Ukraine Chaos Spreads to Odessa as 38 Killed in Fire Related to Unrest". Voice of America. 2 May 2014. Retrieved 2 May 2014.
- ^ "US, EU's support of Kiev's tactics blocks peaceful resolution of Ukraine crisis – Russia". RT. May 2, 2014.
- ^ "Radicals shooting at people in Odessa's burning building caught on tape". RT. May 4, 2014.
- ^ Владимир Павлов (May 2, 2014). "Одесса. Как поджигали Дом Профсоюзов (полное видео)".
- ^ "Avoiding facts? MSM uncertain who is behind deadly Odessa blaze". RT. May 4, 2014.
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)
Bias
Again, there was no weapon in the Trade Union Building. Here is the proof from the police:
All shooting taked place at the clashes near Grecheskaya Square. There was no gunfire near Kulikovo Field.
Also, please add, that some people, jumping from the fire, were 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I prefer 'pro and anti government' myself. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 3 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- However, one could change it to 'Support and opposition to a united Ukraine'. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 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)
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.[1][2] A report by the Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (UNIAN) said that the pro-united Ukraine crowd began to throw petrol bombs into the building after having been fired upon by the pro-Russian group.[3] Another report by BBC News claimed that the situation was unclear, and that both sides had been throwing petrol bombs.[4] However, an article in the Washington Post said that a "pro-Ukrainian mob" threw petrol bombs into the building, causing the building to set alight.[5] An official investigation conducted by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry stated that no firearms were found inside the building, but that the pro-Russian group accidentally set the building on fire whilst throwing petrol bombs.[6][7]
- it works for me. Much better than the rather dry version I prepared. Kkostagiannis (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Done – Thanks for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Refs
- ^ Amos, Howard (2 May 2014). "Dozens reported dead after Odessa building fire". The Guardian.
Pro-Russia fighters mounted a last-ditch defence of the burning building, throwing masonry and petrol bombs from the roof on to the crowd below.
- ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/473754/Dozens-killed-by-smoke-as-Ukraine-moves-closer-to-civil-war
- ^ http://www.unian.net/politics/914095-kak-gorel-dom-profsoyuzov-v-odesse.html#ad-image-0
- ^ "Dozens killed in Odessa fire amid clashes". BBC News. 2 May 2014. Retrieved 2 May 2014.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
WPbattles
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1337991-v-militsiyi-nazivayut-domislami-informatsiyu-pro-nibito-zagiblikh-v-odesi-rosiyan-i-pridnistrovtsiv
- ^ http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/sbu-russia-behind-kidnapping-of-osce-military-observers-updates-videos-346066.html
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. [5] Of course this is only one of the fires, there's another in the foyer, but maybe that's why the smoke was so bad (multiple fire sources)--Львівське (говорити) 20:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It might be actually connected to the dozens of dozens molotov's being thrown by pro-Kiev mob into the building. Of which we have numerous videos. Also the eyewitness and BBC are two different things. The eyewitness would need to be verified. For all we know he could be one of the supporters of Kiev authorities.—MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The BBC has two separate eyewitness accounts, and makes sure to mention that neither is certain. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- two groups had a fire fight and the thing in between them caught on fire. I don't think we'll ever get a clearer or more obvious answer to what happened. —Львівське (говорити) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The BBC has two separate eyewitness accounts, and makes sure to mention that neither is certain. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 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)
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 presens 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)
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)