Talk:2014 Odesa clashes/Archives/ 1

Calling a massacre "clashes"
Someone should change the title. It is ridiculous to murder over 50 people and then call it a clash. There were videos of killings with pistols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. When there is an event in which one side suffers significantly more casualties than the other one typically uses the term 'massacre' to refer to it. Additionally, after reviewing the archive of this talk page it is apparent there have been issues with WP:NPOV since its inception.
 * The phase “History Is Written by the Victors” is coming to mind.... Detsom (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I added Template:Unbalanced to the head of the page so this can be sorted out. Detsom (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A massacre is an indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed people. This was not the case here, and using this term is completely inappropriate. Furthermore, it's been coined by Russian propaganda and those echoing their views as an excuse to distort the truth and justify Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The deaths were the result of clashes, in which petrol bombs were thrown and the building accidentally caught fire. It is completely unacceptable to give credence to this factually inaccurate propagandist term in an encyclopedic article. If it is to be mentioned, it should be in a section where it describes the Russian narrative, preferably under conspiracy theories. The sources provided are not credible. The first is an incredibly biased pro-Russian article which refers to the Ukrainians as 'fascists'. The second is a biased Azerbaijan state news network. The third, even refers to "Odessa massacre" in quotation marks, remarking that this is Russia's narrative.

Also, what the Russian propagandists refer to as a 'massacre' is the deaths that took place as a result of the fire. This article is about all the clashes, not just the fire. Impulsion (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No. We describe it as it’s described in reliable sources, not conspiracy theories floating around the internet.  Volunteer Marek  01:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * See the talk page achives of the Wikipedia article "list of events named massacres" because it used to be called "list of massacres" it was moved after a large RM because "massacre" like "terrorist" is a value-laden term (see WP:CONTENTIOUS). This is why the mass killings that take place in American schools on a regular basis are usually called "shootings" because it is descriptive and factual without being value-laden. In the text it may be stated that the local Member of Congress will have described the shootings as an "awful massacre" and that phrase can be used providing in-text attribution is used stating who said it.


 * However sometimes some historical events are near univerasally known as masssacres. Usually in these cases the "M" of massacre will be a capital letter. For example the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and the Boston Massacre in which case that name is used for the article titles. However they started out as value-laden names for the events, its just that, in those two examples, the Protestants in Europe and the rebels/patriots in American won the propagnda war centuries ago. In the case of events described in this article it is far to soon to predict what the eventual name wil be that will coalesce in reliable disinterested sources, so currently I do not think that value-laden word should be used in the title.


 * This whole issue coverd by WP:CONTENTIOUS, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves" (WP:ASSERT), but it is probably better explained by the short essays summed up with " Don't consider a statement neutral just because you agree with it", and "let the facts speak for themselves". — PBS (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that why the allegedly 20,000 people killed in the Mariupol massacre as per the Mayor included in the link provided by you? In the list you provided, we have about 15 entries between January 2022 to April 2022 called massacres.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres
 * You block people inside a burning building that you set afire with molotovs, and beat those that escape, that is what a massacre is.
 * Don't you find it odd that 48 people died in a fire inside a building and they were all pro-Russian, including women and children? Plus no investigation or prosecutions. I agree, let that fact speak for itself.
 * Here is a pro Ukrainian source that I got my information from: https://ukraine.un.org/en/126054-7-years-no-answers-what-lacking-investigations-events-odesa-2-may-2014
 * Even pro-Ukrainian sources unintentional admit to the guilt. But everyone here was Ukrainian, some were killed for what their political belief was. Ahm1453 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a pro-Ukrainian source - it is simple UN source. What you write and say is Russian propaganda. This has no place on Wikipedia.
 * If you read the article, then the protesters were not pro-Russian, but were committed to the federalization of Ukraine. Although their existence, of course, was generously paid for by the Russian authorities. They were the first to attack the adherents of a united Ukraine, and the corrupt police were also used for this heinous attack. So it was a group of common criminals.
 * When they realized their defeat in the city center, they fled to this building and fenced off in it, including closing the exit for civilians in this building. At the same time, these criminals even threw Molotov cocktails from the building themselves, and got into the building itself, setting it on fire and being in it.
 * Moreover, in the article itself and in the facts it is recorded that as soon as it became clear that the tragedy was inevitable, individual representatives with a united position even helped to get out and provided medical assistance to people with adherents of federalization.
 * This is a tragedy, but above all caused by the corrupt police and the money of Russia, who want to sow violence and destruction. 194.213.107.37 (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"You block people inside a burning building that you set afire with molotovs, and beat those that escape, that is what a massacre is."

Once again, a massacre is an indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed people. Two sides who were actively engaged in combat with each other, with one side suffering heavy casualties in a fire in a building (the source of which has never been proven), is not a massacre by definition. Impulsion (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is generally describes as clashes not a massacre. See title of this page on ruwiki. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Two lead sections is not better than one
For some reason this contentious article has two lead sections: the lead properly called and the section "2 May city centre clashes and Trade Unions House fire", which is basically another lead. Useless repetitions are boring and should be dropped. If unopposed, I intend to do it myself in the next few days according to the following guidelines: 1) Move the second paragraph of the second lead (starting with A detailed minute-by-minute timeline of events) to the subsection "Events"; 2) Retain as much as possible of the first paragraph, especially the wikilink to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and perhaps also the reference to the bloodiest civil conflict in Odesa since 1918; 3) Retain all sources of good quality; 4) What else? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Richard Sakwa on agents provocateurs
The following text was removed by @Karma1998 because "Very speculative and coming from a pro-Russia and anti-NATO source": I don't see how Sakwa's views on the NATO are relevant here, as the point is what happened in Odessa. What Sakwa writes in that regard is largely consistent with, if not corroborated by, the findings of the Council of Europe (see paragraph starting with As reported by the Council of Europe, police officers made little, if any, effort to intervene) as well as with the findings of the 2 May Group (see local authorities had met representatives of the pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan camp and had agreed with them to dismantle the tent camp), so Sakwa's claim cannot be considered WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Even if one were to concede that Richard Sakwa is opinionated, he would still qualify as a reliable source as per WP:BIASED: he is a reputable academic and an expert in post-Soviet politics. We shouldn't remove reliable sources based on the sole argument that they are biased or that we don't like them, otherwise we would multiply silly and disruptive conflicts among editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sakwa doesn’t say that on p 98. He casts doubt by saying the provocateurs were “allegedly from the anti-Maidan group.” He did not say anything about disguises or even speculate the causal logic stated in the passage above. If there’s something elsewhere in the book that does so, then mention it. This is absolutely wrong. —Michael Z. 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Mzajac, I'm quoting from this book
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s what I read. Sakwa makes no suggestions that they were not what they were alleged to be, doesn’t mention disguises, and doesn’t suggest a specific objective. The passage in this article badly misrepresents him. (Never mind whether the claim would be extraordinary or whether he’s biased.) —Michael Z. 01:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that "some policemen [who were] marked with red tags" and "such red-tagged provocateurs" can be faithfully summarised as "agents provocateurs disguised as anti-Maidan activists". I also think that "[who] were let through the police chain" can be summarised as "who were allowed to reach and attack the ultras". However, I admit that "to provoke the destruction of the anti-Maidan tent camp" is not supported by the source. Probably I read it into the text because I was under the impression of the 2 May Group report about the plan to dismantle the camp that had been agreed (they say) between the governor, the police, and a group of anti-Maidan protesters. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that "some policemen [who were] marked with red tags" and "such red-tagged provocateurs" can be faithfully summarised as "agents provocateurs disguised as anti-Maidan activists". I also think that "[who] were let through the police chain" can be summarised as "who were allowed to reach and attack the ultras". However, I admit that "to provoke the destruction of the anti-Maidan tent camp" is not supported by the source. Probably I read it into the text because I was under the impression of the 2 May Group report about the plan to dismantle the camp that had been agreed (they say) between the governor, the police, and a group of anti-Maidan protesters. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * well, neither the Council of Europe nor the 2MayGroup talk of agents provocateurs though. In any case, you're right: while undoubtedly pro-Russian (he has been described as such by many of his colleagues), Sakwa is a scholar on post-Soviet countries and his opinion should be included; however, make it clear that it is Sakwa's opinion, not the official founding of the investigation. Also, should we find other scholars supporting the pro-Ukrainian position, their opinion should be included as well.-Karma1998 (talk)
 * Well, according to Taras Kuzio,, “Today, that same stereotype is alive and well in Russia’s information war; portraying the Euromaidan as a Nazi putsch funded by the CIA, bringing Nazis to power who are suppressing Russian speakers. Like pro-Putin scholars, notably Richard Sakwa, they blame the West – and let Putin off the hook.”. I would avoid using his views on subjects that involve Putin and his war on Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

who wrote this?
heavily biased and incorrect as well as misuse of sources and citations. people were deliberately burnt to their deaths but it's being framed here as a 'both sides clashing' equal fault skirmish? very poor standards by Wikipedia to allow such a contentious event to be depicted like this 82.38.10.33 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pro-Russian activist was the first one to fire a shot, and also pro-Russian activists were the first ones to kill a person that day. It is described using the reliable sources in Russian, Ukrainian and English versions of the page. IMO, these facts already qualify the events as "both sides clashing". --Cannibal Rat (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true. He was falsely blamed. Visual evidence literally confirms this fact cannot be proved and is literally impossible AyazKader (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not true, the euromaidan sent an agent provocateur to shoot at the euromaidan to make people think the pro russian separatist started everything as shown in this video: https://youtu.be/H4dJRnI-X8Q?feature=shared
 * "it's just an yt video, it doesn't prove anything"
 * It shows video proof of the "russian guy" who shot at the euromaidan being on the sode of euromaidan, it can also be seen numerous crimes by the euromaidan there. 86.124.126.193 (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A human. 2A02:3030:80A:EC17:1:0:8431:1770 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a sentence in the article that is either hard to comprehend, or doesn't make any sense at all.
The sentence I take issue with is: 'According to the original plan agreed by the factions in secret, the demolition of the tents had to take his hands out of gangs of football fans "ultras" after the end of a football match'.

The sentence seems to me to lose the plot between 'take' and 'his'.

MathewMunro (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)