Talk:2014 Odesa clashes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deserves a revision

After seven years after the fateful events took place at the Odessa Trade Customs building, this article needs a serious overhaul. This article as currently portrayed is disingenuous to an extreme extent. This completely takes away from the massacre that took place and paints it and just two sides battling it out and one side happened to inflict more casualties. This area of world (former USSR) is subject to huge government-funded initiatives (see my edits in the Armenia-Azerbaijan war for reference). I understand certain groups have greater political sway in English language academia. But, this article obfuscates the truth. A massacre took place. Ukrainian far-right nationalists burned civilians in this building to death . This article should be broken up. With the lower-scale street clashes returning to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine article and the massacre having a standalone page: 2014 Odessa Trade Customs Building Massacre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

References

This article is confusing

This article is confusing because it uses the terms pro-Maidan, anti-Maidan, Euromaidan, Euromaidan protesters, pro-Russian, pro-Euromaidan interchangeably without defining or linking to most of them. I read the article twice, and I'm still not 100% sure if the Euromaidan protesters were pro-Maidan or anti-Maidan.

For example: "Confrontations between Euromaidan and Anti-Maidan protesters" should probably be "Confrontations between Pro-Maidan and Anti-Maidan protesters". I think.

FixedIt4U (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is not good

This article is clearly one sided, as you can easily see by watching this video:

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

I'm not an expert in history or political science, so I want make any improvements, but the truth has to be told. 41.222.249.238 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9AMjLBIliw Generic User (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Some article sources for justifying the mass murder of civilians by burning them to death, are CIA funded/created PR organizations Radiofreedomeurope. Both which were instrumental in the violent overthrow of Ukraine democratic government, and promotion of violence against Ukrainian's against the coup. As the 2014 Odessa illustrated early on.

-G

Yeah, give us more Russian political slogans please, like we are not sick of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.146.39 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just for your information

Some information appears to have been copied from this article to a draft located at Draft:2014 Odessa clashes. I brought this up in the hopes of addressing the copyright issues. Dustin (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dustin V. S.; I've now provided attribution on both talk pages. Perhaps George Ho could clarify to us why he couldn't just propose an article merge in the ordinary way if that was his intention? This seems to me a recipe for a mess – at the moment the histories can still be merged, but that may become harder as time goes on. I think it should be sorted out asap. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester is the sole reason for my reluctance to propose a merge. Actually, I didn't have a merger in mind when I was proposing a page move. That guy takes his work too seriously and is too proud of himself and his work. Look at and read his rants at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop censoring this article.

@Ymblanter, stop censoring the page. If my sources are suposedly not credible prove they are not with credible independant sources. Do not just delete every change I and others made just because you disagree with these changes. It is pretty obvious what happened at Odessa so stop pretending that nothing did happen. The event has been captured from multiple angles on camera and Euromadian sources even uploded videos and images showing burnt and beaten pro-Russians claiming that they had 'killed terroists'. At least look at these sources before stating that they are not credible. On the subject of not credible sources, if you really were not bias you would know to remove every western source from this article. Look at some of the sources: Kyiv Post, Ukrayinska Pravda, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, etc. Every one of these sources will be bias. There purpose is to make Russia and Russian supporters look bad and the Ukrainian government look good and in that very respect they are unreliable. If you want to remove all unreliable sources from the page then you must remove these to as some of them are clearly untrue and many have been debunked. The best way to go about this is to either use only independant intenational souces with no motive, or include many different sources from both sides and write "Russian/Western media claims this:" before it. Generic User (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is your responsibility, per WP:RS and WP:BRD, to support your claims with reliable sources, and to stop reverting and to go to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not once reverted the page. I merely stated in had one sided information from western sources. Any source I will use you will just claim is fabricated by pro-Russians and delete so I don't see any point in writing anything else on the article apart from stating that it is one sided. Generic User (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you are not assuming good faith. Usually, this is a straight way to block.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you please state what sources you would consider impartial and reliable then please, so that I do not make any more 'mistakes' that get me blocked. Generic User (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 Odessa clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303154521/http://info-center.od.ua/9882-v-odesse-nakalilis-strasti-protivniki-kievskoy-vlasti-osadili-oga-k-nim-vyshel-skorik-fotoreportazh.html to http://info-center.od.ua/9882-v-odesse-nakalilis-strasti-protivniki-kievskoy-vlasti-osadili-oga-k-nim-vyshel-skorik-fotoreportazh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Odessa clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416174445/http://www.osce.org/ukrainemonitoring/117777 to http://www.osce.org/ukrainemonitoring/117777
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502213601/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140502/pro-ukrainians-pro-russians-clash-odessa to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140502/pro-ukrainians-pro-russians-clash-odessa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a soapbox for propaganda

I've seen a lot of bad articles at Wikipedia, but this one is among the worst. The tortured use of language to try to make it look like the rape victim was "asking for it" -- so appalling that it's almost comical. The team of POV-pushers who produced this should get some sort of award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.111.42 (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Article is too bloated as it is now (in my humble opinion)

I tried to improve this article today.... But it is so detailed that it is hard to read.... (Hence this run in with Lademoen, by the way.... people can change opinions 😉). I suggest that we remove all the rumours and non-necessary information from this article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

For example the different accounts of what happened by various news organisations at 2014 Odessa clashes#Trade Unions House fire could be summarised much shorter then is done now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And I am thinking that 2014_Odessa_clashes#Investigation should have a stand alone Wikipedia article. It was a bit too much information finishing a very detailed Wikipedia article already.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Lademoen adds exclusively one-sided information (everything which would make Ukraine looking bad and Russia looking good), and many of the sources they are using do not qualify as WP:RS. I left a DS template at their talk page, and we slowly started a trajectory towards a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Very biased

Overwhelming number of sources used in the article are biast towards pro-maidan version of what happened in Odessa. 78.86.1.26 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Misleading wording.

This article states that "pro-Russian militants" were inside the Trade Union building. More correct would be that anti-Maidan protestors took refuge inside the Trade Union when hooligans from the Right Sektor came armed to atack them. These people were NOT militants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:657F:CBCD:2911:C0E7:D51:797E (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I did attempt to update the Lead with terminology to more accurately reflect what the in-line reference says, specifically that the anti-Maidan were protestors – not militants. However this was reverted with alleged PoV pushing. Detsom (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

When group of people holocausts others just due to political views or spoken language - they are called Nazis, not "Ukrainian unity supporters".

When group of people stands for just good relationship with neighboring country and against "one state, one language, one idea" Nazis - they are called pacifists, not "pro-Russian group". 213.196.215.145 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And what you write here is called PoV pushing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Worse than that. These aren't "clashes". People were mass murdered, locked in a building and burned to death. It would be like calling the holocaust a "clash". -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.196.58 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually they were not locked - they knew about pro-Ukraine angry crowd approaching the building, but their separatist leader asked everyone to get inside, barricade and start shooting/throwing molotov from the roof. Apparently that was bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.146.39 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Clashes newspeak for MASSACRE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.160.123 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead has been updated to include 2014 Odessa Massacre as an alternate name. I've been seeing references (off-Wiki) to the Odessa massacre over the past few months, and finally looked it up. I was surprised to see it was not on the page as an "also known as" as I'd seen it referenced as such multiple times. The rest of the Lead definitely needs expansion, and the article certainly needs a thorough review w/r/t sources if any of the anonymous comments on this talk page are to be believed, but outside of the scope of this topic.. Detsom (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Biased Sources

Article needs a disclaimer due to biases of most of the sources 2A02:8109:B5BF:B000:C533:7A9F:6EB2:6656 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Biased

No mention of right extremism. 37.160.86.231 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)