This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doncram (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 5 March 2015 (→Requested move 3 March 2015: reply: Google scholar does have hits on this, in fact. Other.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:39, 5 March 2015 by Doncram (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 3 March 2015: reply: Google scholar does have hits on this, in fact. Other.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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 | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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:
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)
- There is a redirect. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- How would the current title help readers search for the exact date? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2014 (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 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 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)
- Well, why not add extra precision on 2012 Benghazi attack? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 6 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's because you're not looking into Ukrainian, Russian, and European sources... RGloucester — ☎ 06:59, 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- Crossing out double-voting for you. --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 6 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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
 | It has been proposed in this section that 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes be renamed and moved to May 2014 Odessa clashes. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
2 May 2014 Odessa clashes → May 2014 Odessa clashes – The previous RM was closed as removing "2 May" from 2014 Odessa clashes. As a result, the article was broadened. Then it was split into a newer article and the same article dealing with May protests in Odessa. I still think a "2" is unnecessary to exactly insert in order to search for this article. Some or many articles that deal with one-day events do not use an exact date, unlike September 11 attacks. I tried asking others to split the article up, but no one responded. Therefore, I'm sure that the title change won't affect the article itself. George Ho (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – Clashes described in this article only took place on 2 May 2014, not on any other day. The proposed title is imprecise, and incorrect. It implies an article scope of "May", when the article scope is only "2 May". We must be WP:PRECISE. There were no "May protests in Odessa", so the nominator is entirely incorrect. There were only the 2 May clashes. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The 2014 Odessa clashes#2 May city centre clashes section describes 2 May events and also continuation and/or related events during 3 May to 4 May or 5 May. And the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Aftermath subsection is within "Events" section so seems to describe the 3-May to 5-May events as events that are part of the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. While "Investigation" section goes on to later events/activities outside the scope of the 2 May clashes event itself. I am not familiar with this material, only noticed mention of this at wp:ANI. But it kinda seems to me that it's awkward to limit the definition of the "clashes" (and the name of the article) to just what happened on 2 May and not 3 May-5 May. "May 2014 Odessa clashes" avoids that awkwardness. It doesn't happen to bother me that the reader arrives and would immediately be informed that the scope of events to be covered are just the 2 May events and other events in the immediate aftermath of 2 May. Article titles can be approximate, and often need to be approximate to avoid being too long. I won't "vote" here because I don't understand the overall context and what might be balancing considerations. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Those events are merely the aftermath, and are not "clashes", strictly speaking. It is no different than the "aftermath" of the 11th September attacks. This article is only about 2 May. It is unacceptable to allow such a vague title. Article titles cannot approximate. They need to be exact. They must define the scope of the article. The scope of the article is 2 May 2014, and it will remain so for eternity. If you want to write a new article on the non-existent "3 May clashes", be my guest. That's not this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks RGloucester, point taken, including about September 11 working as a name. But then, does the naming issue have to do with "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" perhaps being a name coined by Misplaced Pages (vs. "September 11" being in really wide usage)? See wp:NEOLOGISM. How did press coverage then, or academic sources since then, or other sources commonly refer to this topic? "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" seems a bit unwieldy to me, i would suspect that sources use something different. Why not "May 2, 2014 Odessa clashes", for one alternative, maybe that is used more. If a common name can be established, that is probably the best for an article name. By the way I've seen extended controversy about article names when members of a Wikiproject overly liked their "systematic" approach to naming articles, which worked okay when there was no other generally established name, but caused ill feelings when there was in fact a common name that some others wanted to use. Their preference for their systematic names was wrong, IMO. As a different example, I'm concerned about airplane crash names that use "Airline Flight #" format, which works fine for some cases where the crash was well-known and even led the airline to retire the flight number, but is poor for more obscure cases where the flight number actually applies to current/other flights, although it is "systematic". Here, what do the sources usually call it? And, if the usual sources that come to any consensus are mostly not in English, what is the literal translation, and what is any most common translation? But maybe there is no common name here, in fact. I hope i am not bothering people, asking for basic level explanation, when I am in fact ignorant about this topic specifically. --doncram 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no common name in reliable sources. One will hear "events of 2 May" or "tragedy of 2 May" often in the Ukrainian media, "2 May fire", "2 May clashes", "2 May incident". Russian tabloid sources tend to use "Odessa massacre", but that's a PoV name not accepted by RS. The present title is a WP:NDESC title, created because there is no one common, unambiguous, and neutral name. It is not a "neologism". This article is written in British English, with DMY dates. We are not going to use a MDY title. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- As an example, see this report, which refers to the events as the "Odessa 2nd May 2014 Tragedy", or this article, which refers to "events of 2 May". The Guardian also follows the "events of 2 May" pattern. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again, RGloucester. In some searching, including Google news searching and Google scholar search on (Odessa conflict 2014) and Google scholar search on (Odessa clashes 2014), right, I don't see an obvious most common name emerging. I saw examples of "Odessa massaacre" (yes, too judgmental) and "Odessa building fire" (which isn't broad enough) and "Odessa clashes" and "Odessa conflict". Not actually seeing "2 May" or "May 2" as part of naming much, though. Try:
- and vary the usage of quotes and other search parameters. --doncram 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. Looking at Google Scholar is pointless, as no books have been written on the subject, at yet. Because there is no one common unambiguous neutral name, we need to make a WP:NDESC title. That's what we have now, and that's why it should stay. It has worked for a year, it is excellent, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. It defines the scope of the events as they are, is neutral, and is unambiguous. Looking in news coverage from the day the event happened is not a good way to determine how to name an article. One needs to look at sources that look back on the event. There is no common name in these. I've already said that in Ukrainian sources with a historical perspective, "tragedy of 2 May" and "events of 2 May" are the most common names. However, neither of these are useful for an article title. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, i mean no disrespect, but maybe you're too close to the subject/article as written, maybe originally when the story was fresh? I haven't checked contribution history. But it's a bit striking to me that the dates of all or almost all of the sources in the article suggest they are breaking news articles, on May 2 or very close to it. Some "access dates" are later, but when I go into the articles I see the actual article date is May 2 or so (and I have added some of those publication dates to some references). What's more and more useful for establishing best title for an article like this, is how the topic is referred to later, when there's some perspective about it, and especially by scholars/historians. Please click on the Google scholar search provided by my "Try" suggestion. That search, with ("Odessa clashes" 2014) brings you to two scholarly articles that begin to have some perspective. Try variations ("Odessa conflict" 2014), or (Odessa "May 2") and (Odessa "2 May"), etc., to find some others. I am not saying it's obvious that one name has emerged as clearly common, but you're wrong that there's been nothing written in Google scholar, and Google scholar searching is probably going to settle the name for this article, eventually if not right now. --doncram 16:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. Looking at Google Scholar is pointless, as no books have been written on the subject, at yet. Because there is no one common unambiguous neutral name, we need to make a WP:NDESC title. That's what we have now, and that's why it should stay. It has worked for a year, it is excellent, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. It defines the scope of the events as they are, is neutral, and is unambiguous. Looking in news coverage from the day the event happened is not a good way to determine how to name an article. One needs to look at sources that look back on the event. There is no common name in these. I've already said that in Ukrainian sources with a historical perspective, "tragedy of 2 May" and "events of 2 May" are the most common names. However, neither of these are useful for an article title. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- As an example, see this report, which refers to the events as the "Odessa 2nd May 2014 Tragedy", or this article, which refers to "events of 2 May". The Guardian also follows the "events of 2 May" pattern. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no common name in reliable sources. One will hear "events of 2 May" or "tragedy of 2 May" often in the Ukrainian media, "2 May fire", "2 May clashes", "2 May incident". Russian tabloid sources tend to use "Odessa massacre", but that's a PoV name not accepted by RS. The present title is a WP:NDESC title, created because there is no one common, unambiguous, and neutral name. It is not a "neologism". This article is written in British English, with DMY dates. We are not going to use a MDY title. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks RGloucester, point taken, including about September 11 working as a name. But then, does the naming issue have to do with "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" perhaps being a name coined by Misplaced Pages (vs. "September 11" being in really wide usage)? See wp:NEOLOGISM. How did press coverage then, or academic sources since then, or other sources commonly refer to this topic? "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" seems a bit unwieldy to me, i would suspect that sources use something different. Why not "May 2, 2014 Odessa clashes", for one alternative, maybe that is used more. If a common name can be established, that is probably the best for an article name. By the way I've seen extended controversy about article names when members of a Wikiproject overly liked their "systematic" approach to naming articles, which worked okay when there was no other generally established name, but caused ill feelings when there was in fact a common name that some others wanted to use. Their preference for their systematic names was wrong, IMO. As a different example, I'm concerned about airplane crash names that use "Airline Flight #" format, which works fine for some cases where the crash was well-known and even led the airline to retire the flight number, but is poor for more obscure cases where the flight number actually applies to current/other flights, although it is "systematic". Here, what do the sources usually call it? And, if the usual sources that come to any consensus are mostly not in English, what is the literal translation, and what is any most common translation? But maybe there is no common name here, in fact. I hope i am not bothering people, asking for basic level explanation, when I am in fact ignorant about this topic specifically. --doncram 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Those events are merely the aftermath, and are not "clashes", strictly speaking. It is no different than the "aftermath" of the 11th September attacks. This article is only about 2 May. It is unacceptable to allow such a vague title. Article titles cannot approximate. They need to be exact. They must define the scope of the article. The scope of the article is 2 May 2014, and it will remain so for eternity. If you want to write a new article on the non-existent "3 May clashes", be my guest. That's not this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)