Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RGloucester (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 3 March 2015 (hat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 35 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ukraine Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 May 2014.

This article is 100% lies and propaganda.

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/First_they_came_...

Requested move 30 December 2014

The below discussion must be ignored for the existence of the separate article, 2014 Odessa clashes.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 Odessa clashes. Number 57 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

2 May 2014 Odessa clashes → May 2014 Odessa clashes – Or 2014 Odessa clashes? Whether there are other clashes in Odessa in 2014 or May 2014 is up to WP:notability. We should make the title more concise to readers who want to search for the topic without the need to know exact date of the clash. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support a move either to: 2014 Odessa clashes or Odessa clashes, 2014

"massacre" is also used but it seems there was more than one event. See:

• odessa AND ("2 may" OR "May 2") AND 2014 on web
• odessa AND ("2 may" OR "May 2") AND 2014 in news

GregKaye 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely and completely oppose – These clashes were only on 2 May. They did not take place across the whole year or month, and there have been many minor clashes since. Your proposed titles blow the event out of proportion. This is not a more WP:CONCISE title because it gives less information to the reader. WP:CONCISE says "sufficient information to identify the topic". Your proposed title does not give sufficient information. The article title must define the scope of the article. The scope is the clashes that took place on 2 May, and on no other day. That's why the day must be included, to meet WP:PRECISE. This article is not going to be expanded to deal with other clashes during 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 14:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How would the current title help readers search for the exact date? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a redirect. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A redirect title can become a current title. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2014 Odessa clashes per WP:PRECISION and per User:RGloucester. Now that 2014 will be over in Ukraine in less than 5 minutes, it is clear that the actions dealt with in this article (which, according to the article were of more than one day) are evidently the only notable such ones of the year. —  AjaxSmack  21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article. The clashes were only on one day. The "aftermath" section is about the aftermath, not about "clashes". RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I did read the article and there were two days of clashes covered. I'm not sure what an "aftermath" is in this case. If the 3 May clashes can be covered in an article on the 2 May clashes, then so can other "aftermath" clashes. (The the Ukrainian article (which also uses "2014" but not the day or month) does this with a few sentences tacked onto the end of the article.) Since the entire sequence of events is dealt with in one article and there are no other independently notable clashes of the year, "2014" is precise enough. —  AjaxSmack  01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There were no "3 May clashes". The Ukrainian article is irrelevant. "2014" is not precise. It is unacceptable. These clashes took place only on one day, that is, 2 May. This article is not about clashes in Odessa across 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, why not add extra precision on 2012 Benghazi attack? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish you would do. That's a rubbish title, and I've told you so. I proposed disambiguation by date, but that discussion was a mire. It has no relevance here. You are going to destroy this article, and create ten tons of work that otherwise would not be necessary. I'll have to expand this article, then fork off a sub-article for this specific incident. It is a disaster in the making. I don't understand what you don't understand. "2014 Odessa clashes" is not CONCISE or PRECISE. It does not specify what event this article is referring to, other than to say "clashes in 2014 in Odessa", which means that the scope of the article would change with a title change. This article is ONLY about the 2 May clashes, not about any other clashes. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind broadening the article as long as other clashes of the year in the same area were reported. Why feeling upset? Do you want glory or something? --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm upset because you are destroying an article for no good reason. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think removing "2 May" destroys this article. I searched for other Odessa clashes of the year and found no stories reported. If there is one, the article would have broadened. --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it would not've broadened, because this article is only about one day's clashes, not about any other day in 2014's clashes. You may have found "no stories reported", but that merely means you've not been thorough. RGloucester — ☎ 06:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I used Google News and Bing News. I typed "Odessa riots" and "Odessa clashes", and I found none other than May 2 or May 3. Links will tell you: . --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's because you're not looking into Ukrainian, Russian, and European sources... RGloucester — ☎ 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are pushy or overbearing or totally discernible. I tried searching for them in Ukrainian and Russian, but my knowledge in these languages is very poor. Perhaps you should search them yourself if you keep "opposing". Otherwise, your arguments become empty and ineffective. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not "empty". Even if there were no other clashes, the proposed title does not define the scope of the article. It implies that the clashes took place over a year, when they only took place on one day in that year. It is a total kibosh, and there is no way to support it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. No sense in having overly precise date. SkyBon (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't overly precise. It is necessary to disambiguate from other clashes in 2014. I don't want to have to work to expand the scope of this article to all clashes in Odessa in 2014. If this move takes place, I'll be forced to do so. That is inappropriate. This article is about one event on one day, not about the whole year. Please stop this nonsense, before you put a terrible amount of work on my shoulders. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a load off your shoulders. If they're not notable, they belong at Wikinews, not here. Also see my comment above. —  AjaxSmack  01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

They are, but are covered elsewhere. You cannot rename this article. I oppose it. I will not be forced to expand the scope of this article and create a fork. These clashes were only on 2 May. That's it, and that's what this article is about. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Crossing out double-voting for you. --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't "vote" here, so I can hardly "vote" for anything. Please don't modify my comments. RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to 2014 Odessa clashes per nomination. They were the only notable clashes of the year, so per WP:PRECISE there is no need to provide more detail than the year.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. There were other clashes, and these clashes did not take place during the year of 2014. They took place on 2 May 2014. This is a simply wrong title proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one moving adding extra precision in the title in the first place. I suggest you refrain from rebutting our arguments further. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Create "May 2014 Odessa clashes"?

The article was previously moved to "2014 Odessa clashes". However, the article was revamped before history logs were moved back to "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes", leaving the other a separate entity. This was filed at WP:ANI before the mess was cleaned up. I originally want to re-propose a move, but I fear some sole editor would try to cause more problems if the move happens. To avoid another mess like last time, I'm proposing a creation of "May 2014 Odessa clashes". If creating that article is impossible, perhaps I'll re-propose a page move. --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Requested move 3 March 2015

• Redirect-Class Ukraine pages
• Mid-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles