Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes/Archive 2

Discussion
Issue with the stated involvement of Russian nationals and Transdnestrian nationals. This has not been verified as accurate and many articles are not pushing that information. Even the BBC, like here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27275383. I say that the involvement of those parties be removed until further verification. Much like how forces found Right Sector ID card recently near Slavyansk. -BloodofIndependence — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodofIndependence (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Haven't written here before so hope I don't mess up the system. Just wanted to say that reports that those burned to death were Russian or Moldaovian citizens is BS. According to Kyiv Post they were all local residents: http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/odessa-who-is-to-blame-for-46-odessa-deaths-346817.html. According to ITAR-TASS they were of both sexes and between 18 and 62 years old. http://en.itar-tass.com/world/730551 This point in the article should be changed. Symonenko (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Symonenko


 * ✅ — 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)


 * 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)


 * (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.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * What about calling it the May 2 2014 Odessa Massacre? ' Massacre is also a verb that means to kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, especially brutally and indiscriminately. ' from Massacre. I would consider the event to be a massacre, due in part to the brutal nature of the deaths, as well as the number of dead.  Some sources have already called it a massacre.  User:BloodofIndependence  — Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I second that. Clearly what is going to be remembered about the events in Odessa on this day is the massacre. "Clashes" happen all the time; scores of people getting burned alive as the result of violence in contrast is an unusual and notable occurrence. – Herzen (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Massacre is a POV title, as don't know who conclusively started the fire. We only know for fact that the 6 Ukrianian deaths were 'massacred' by the Russians in the streets, but not those who died in the fire, who likely were killed by accident.--Львівське (говорити) 01:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Miriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of massacre -"the violent killing of many people". I would say that this fits the dictionary definition, no POV problem involved. Did a bunch of people die at a single instance for no reason? Yes. That's what I would call a massacre. I would call the February Kiev events a massacre as well. "Massacre is also a verb that means to kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, especially brutally and indiscriminately. The first known use for this meaning was in 1588." It's also possible NOT calling an event a massacre when it fits, fits a POV that condones? or belittles violent acts. I would think that Wikipedia is the kind of website that does not support violence. --[User:BloodofIndependence]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodofIndependence (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This implies murder. People dying from smoke inhalation from a fire they started is not "violent killing" --Львівське (говорити) 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You think you have a better understanding of what happened than a local news reporter? To quote from the o1.ua report I gave a link to below in the "Causes" section:
 * the Maidan fighters were also inside the building. Here they demonstrate the Ukrainian flag in the window followed by the crowd approval. And here are other pictures made some minutes later. You can see that in that very window at the 3d floor the fire starts. At that very moment the governor Vladimir Nemirovsky actually gives the fighter the licence for murder [лицензию на убийство]:
 * “The actions of Odessa inhabitants aimed at neutralization and detention of armed terrorists are considered to be valid”
 * As we have already told the majority of those who came to fire the building of Trade-unions were not from Odessa
 * Herzen (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * Not really. The Russian language article in its current state looks quite non-biased. Note that "Russian language page" does not mean "Russian state page", fortunately Russian Wikipedia has not (yet) been taken over by Kremlin propaganda machine. Also note that almost all Ukrainian citizens know Russian language, half of them are native Russian speakers, and not so many of them share pro-Russian views. Also, in Russia there is a certain percentage of sane people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that English Wikipedia has not (yet) been taken over by Kiev's Hunta propaganda machine. But very funny that a resident of Ukraine decided to assess the number of savvy in Russia. by Topic: I would suggest to remove from the card "Russian nationalists". Since the link says only about three detained Russian citizens, without affiliation to any organization. 188.114.49.230 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Vlad Sh


 * Guys, aren't you all tired of parroting the term "hunta"? You look really stupid doing this. Try to diversify you lexicon a bit. And it's spelled as "junta" btw. (Nothing personal, just noting the first-hand demonstration of the power of Russian brainwashing machine.)
 * Ехал хунта через хунта
 * Видит хунта: хунта хунта
 * Хунта хунта хунта хунта
 * Хунта хунта хунта хунта — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but just people with brains washed propaganda everywhere see "KGB" "GRU" "FSB". "Junta" is just one of the terms for the current government in Kiev. Keep yourself in the hands. 109.165.17.54 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Vlad Sh
 * Using the term "junta" incorrectly just shows a lack of understanding of the topic IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 05:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Any objections if I (or any other administrator) would replace the link St. George Ribbon with Ribbon of Saint George and solve the two links to disambigs? It should be pretty much uncontroversial I hope.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All three ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 May 2014
Please change the infobox to include the 'claimed', as discussed above. I will provide the code here:

RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to wait a bit and then edit if no objections emerge.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * why does this get filed under claimed if its in official police reports? with passports produced to the public? --Львівське (говорити) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it is disputed by many western sources, which refer to 'claims' (such as in that BBC article that mentions Right Sector). RGloucester  — ☎ 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with this edit.BloodofIndependence (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector was not "claimed". Their official site confirms their involvement At official Right Sector website "Так, бійці «Правого сектора» та інші українські патріоти понесли втрати вбитими та пораненими. Проте втрати серед російських терористів були набагато більшими, а саме явище «сепаратистів» у Одесі зникло як фактор. Усе це – заслуга об’єднаної патріотичними почуттями громадськості." "Yes, the men "the right sector" and other Ukrainian patriots suffered losses in killed and wounded. However, the toll of Russian terrorists were much higher, namely the phenomenon of "separatists" in Odessa disappeared as a factor. All this - the merit of a united patriotic feelings of the public." http://pravyysektor.info/articles/ato-po-narodnomu-abo-chomu-ne-vladimir-putin-ne-vviv-vijska/ http://archive.is/y12mT Cathry (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that, at least until Cathry is blocked for destructive editing, there is no consensus to implement the change. I am unwatching the page anyway, please feel free to add a new request once consensus has been achieved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "is blocked for destructive editing" be so kind to describe my "destructive editing" with links Cathry (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Identity of the likely killers
I am aware of the intensity of the debate here, the unreliability of using direct sources (videos or victims' testimonies) and Wikipedians reasonable subjective (read the disclosure above) and objective abhorrence of blogs, LiveJournal or otherwise, as sources. However, given the continuous stonewalling of the official Kiev's investigation into the identity of the February 2014 Maidan snipers three months after the event, I am suggesting that we actively search for third-party major news agencies mentioning the very serious and substantiated allegations listed and partly substantiated by amateur sleuths.

(After much thought, I decided not to list them here, to avoid offending the sensibilities and using Wikipedia as a forum for repeating these allegations].

However, I need to list at least one such allegation: a "National Anticorruption Portal" article and a Russian Wiki Reality record, both archived by me now - I really need to reference the latter here, sorry for overriding the Wiki blacklist thereby.

Why?

IMHO, the smoking gun is the official TV report "Андрей Парубий подарил добровольцам одесской самообороны современные бронежилеты", published on 29 Apr 2014, thus BEFORE the massacre, by the Взгляд из Одессы news agency, of Andriy Volodymyrovych Parubiy meeting and shaking hands with the infamous sotnik Nikolai Volkov (НИКОЛАЙ ВОЛКОВ), a confirmed criminal sought by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine since 2012 (see its archive thereof that I have just created in case it is gone too soon). Because this official search notice and the TV report may soon disappear from the Web, I am quoting the latter's YT description: "Секретарь Совета национальной безопасности и обороны Украины подарил добровольцам, дежурящим на патриотических блок-постах на въезде в Одессу современные бронежилеты 5-го класса защиты.", quick translation: "the secretary of the Internal Affairs Ministry provides the volunteers manning the patriotic roadblocks at the entrance to Odessa the modern vests of the fifth protection class" (whatever they may be), see 0:54 and later. As many of you have seen, Mr Volkov was clearly recorded shooting into the anti-Maidan side (another fresh archive, just in case).

(FYI, I was trying to alert the Ministry thereof, informing them that "I found your fugitive - only last week he was shaking hands, consulting and receiving protective gear from your bosses", but they provide only phone numbers for the contact, while my Ukrainian is not up to scratch yet. A Ukrainian speaker may thus wish to call the Ministry ("tel. 048-779-49-61") about it, on my behalf, to perform her civic duty.  )

(Zezen (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)).


 * Even if Volkov was somehow involved, what does this all prove? Just a bunch of grasping at straws and original research. Also, not sure what you mean about stonewalling because the Kiev investigation into the snipers has been ongoing and transparent. --Львівське (говорити) 18:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Volkov aside, I proved that Parubiy was in cahoots with the shooters. A picture speaks louder than words: here is a screenshots of this Parubiy's meeting the alleged shooter, a confirmed fugitive criminal (see the official source above), discussing the tactics: http://oi57.tinypic.com/2z8n2uq.jpg. Later Volkov is even given the vest.

See the film for a fuller picture. It is direct evidence, in high res, of Volkov working together and planning events with Parubiy. Zezen (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * this is all original research and theories --Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Police scandal
Attorney General says it was a planned action and theres the investigation on the police inaction or collaboration, which should probably be added to the overall investigation. I don't think the current article talks enough about the role of police in the events. --Львівське (говорити) 20:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 

--Львівське (говорити) 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * former police officer involved / arrested, just archiving this source  --Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

KyivPost interview with two anti-government survivors
Two Odessa fire survivors, both in the anti-government camp, tell their stories

A couple of useful quotes:
 * “The young ones said ‘We’re not leaving, we’ll be a memorial to the fact that Odessa will never be a fascist city,’” Tetiana said. “We wanted to help them; we thought if adults were there too it would be safer. It never occurred to us that they would kill us.”
 * “They were burning us inside on purpose and no one would let us leave,” the woman said.

Herzen (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a good article and I think shows that while the KP is pro-west provides fair coverage. Not sure what we can use from it given its witness reports and weight, and we talked about this above, but this is what I found interesting:
 * "They both think those on the building roof throwing Molotov cocktails, clearly seen in video footage, were not from their group. However, Alyona says protesters inside may have been making Molotov cocktails, in panic, but were not very competent and failed to throw them outside."
 * "they could hear people coming to attack them from the corridor. They were in camouflage and mostly wearing masks, and Alyona believes from the way they spoke that they were not from Odessa." - they were then saved by local pro-Ukrainains

But this is what I'll file under conspiracy theory (like Poroshenko talking about the chemicals and it being a false flag orchestrated to increase deaths (not endorsing the theory, just pointing this out)
 * “It happened immediately, there was terrible black smoke everywhere, on all the floors at once,”
 * " At the same time as the smoke appeared, all the lights went out. Later, the water was turned off."
 * "She says [THE NON LOCALS] threw gas canisters, broken glass and possibly stun grenades"

--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to curb over-reliance on Ukrainian coverage
I find this and other related articles extremely dependent on the POV of the Ukrainian side. I therefore started a thread at the RSN.--  K a t h o v o  talk 13:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you name a specific source used that you have an issue with? There are a lot of English language sources used in the article. Painting with broad strokes and saying "stop using ukrainian news on an event in ukraine" won't really go anywhere. --Львівське (говорити) 15:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples and rationale are presented at WP:RSN.--  K a t h o v o  talk 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You provided no direct examples or rationale. Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Львівське (говорити) 15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I don't like that the article is extremely one-sided.--  K a t h o v o  talk 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is not at all one-sided. Everything is verified in western sources, reports about the 'burn, Colorado, burn' and beatings are included. That there were camouflaged men participating with sticks and shields on the Ukrainian side is reported. That Right Sector was there is included. If we were 'extremely one sided', none of that would be in the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, joke of the day: "Everything is verified in western sources". "western sources" == how the Department of State prefers to put things == one-sided. 5.12.156.245 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More or less the story Lvivske is trying to present as 'truth' is as follows pro-Russian terrorists and some foreigners attacked a 'much larger' pro-'Ukrainian' rally, then they hided themselves in a building...which they did set on fire in order to commit suicide...Oh Mondieu... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's like you can read my mind! --Львівське (говорити) 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2014
I'd like it if an administrator would add this image to the aftermath section.

RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this is uncontroversial, and it would be nice to get a relevant picture into the article. Could please carry this out? RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅—Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The 36
A list has been released by a source saying the 36 who died in the building or thereabouts. It's unconfirmed by authorities so I'm not sure if we can use it. The list also doesn't specify if they were only pro-Russians or if this is just 36 of the 46 identified so far. According to the list only one died of burns, which I guess dismisses all those photos of people burned to death found on the Russian blogosphere and twitter. Also, most died of smoke inhalation which lines up with other reports already out in the press. --Львівське (говорити) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske - they might be dismissing it because of photo analysis of the bodies. A lot of people see the building have little fire damage, barricades erected (no fire damage), people burnt only above the torso. A pregnant woman presumably strangled. A woman with no pants that is assumed tho have been raped. There are also bodies with bullet wounds to the face. They analyze the photos and conclude people did not die from the fire.

one dead is government official Vyacheslav Markin --Львівське (говорити) 00:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This source of Odessa news says the Odessa Regional Council deputy says 116 died in the fire. is this possible or reported elsewhere? can it be verified? --Львівське (говорити) 02:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 48 are still missing, should be in the infobox --Львівське (говорити) 06:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * interfax says 38/46 identified officially, and 3 missing, not lining up with the 48 above --Львівське (говорити) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 42 named confirmed of the dead now via UAPravda --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

conspiracy theories
This article tries to debunk a bunch of the theories, like the pic floating around of the pregnant woman --Львівське (говорити) 14:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your argument makes a big assumption: That the bodies of those who died from smoke inhalation could not be burnt.


 * So let's see: 5 died from gunshot wounds.  8 died from falling.  2 died from poisoning?   1 died from burns.  20 died from gas poisoning. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector involvement?
Can we get some more definitive sourcing here? Officially, Right Sector isn't actively involved in militant ops in the south and east of ukraine, but obviously individual members can be anywhere in a personal capacity. The BBC source used says "Some were veteran supporters of Kiev's Maidan protest movement - the Maidan Self Defence Forces - and/or part of the right-wing Pravy Sektor (Right Sector)." So from this source it's not clear "they were either self defense or right sector" essentially. This is stated mater of factly in the article, and has no other sources. We need to remove this 'theory' without something more concrete from a reliable source. --Львівське (говорити) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From the local TV news report I gave a link to in the "Causes" section:
 * According to the police staff there in the crowd were two battalions of police – “East” and “Storm” recently staffed with nationalists from Right Sector in civil clothes....
 * The fighters from Right Sector were the first to enter the building and they started at once to seek for the documents of the dead.
 * Herzen (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The BBC report says that Right Sector members participated in some sense, and it isn't in a quotation. That tends to support inclusion. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * it says self defense OR right sector, which tells me the writer drew broad conclusions on the fact they were armed with bats. That conspiracy sites are talking bout the New York Times "covering up the fascists" tells me that western source aren't talking about right sector involvement for a reason. —Львівське (говорити) 00:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can question the BBC, which is a known and authoritative source. The Daily Beast also has vague references to Right Sector. It strikes me as odd. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * all I'm asking for is a definitive statement (not 'either or' or 'some were interviewed after') —Львівське (говорити) 01:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing definitive other than the BBC, that isn't Russian. However, given that both the BBC and Russian sources are printing it, I believe it should remain. I have a feeling that WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS might be involved. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * im googling and only seeing russian owned sites talking about right sector, surely a single other major newspaper picked up on this? --Львівське (говорити) 00:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This local Russian language but pro-Kiev newspaper has this to say:
 * In Odessa, the main separatist "nest" has been burned down
 * The tent city of pro-Russian activists on Kulikova field no longer exists. After the events in the center of the city patriots of Odessa, members of the "Right Sector", and football fans liquidated tents of the separatists and their stage.
 * Since this newspaper is definitely not pro-Russia, it has no reason to report that Right Sector was involved unless that was true. – Herzen (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * how is that "pro-kiev"? It's a news source saying "brave pro-russian activists" thats hardly "pro-kiev". This is another misrepresentation of the source by you today.--Львівське (говорити) 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you imagine you see anti-Ukrainian bias in every Russian language text you run across? That story nowhere mentions "brave pro-Russian activists". In fact, the story characterizes them as cowardly:
 * Despite the fact that pro-Russian activists were preparing for the arrival, at the first sign of danger most of them fled.
 * That's straight Google translate. And then there's this story: Chief of the Crimean Police Embraces the Head Separatist. Clearly, the point is that the reason that police stepped aside and allowed the clashes to take place is that their head was sympathetic to the separatists. Again, hardly Russian propaganda. And finally there is this: In Odessa, billboards have appeared saying: "No to separatism!" Russian propaganda calls pro-Russian Ukrainians pro-federalist; Ukrainian propaganda calls them seperatists. Thus, this newspaper is clearly pro-Kiev. – Herzen (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I second this. Taking into account that now Right Sector has become more a mythologem than a real organization (since its pretty marginal influence is highly exaggerated, especially by Russian media, so that now, when we see Right Sector mentioned in any news source, we take it with a great distrust), it should be carefully considered whether Right Sector should be listed among the parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not to include Russian (or any other) claims of Right Sector presence if Ukrainian claims of Transnistrian citizens are freely taken into account. So far both sides have come up with unsubstantiated claims therefore if Right Sector presence should be omitted, so should be the claimed presence of foreign nationals. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point. Maybe separate the obvious parties (i.e. pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian activists) from presumable ones (the rest)? E.g. move the latters to a separate "Claimed parties" list or mark them as "claimed"? P.S. It's me again, different IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.30.100 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm for this too. We can't simply omit Ukrainian and Russian sources, they may be biased but that doesn't mean they're unreliable. I suggest anything below pro-unity and pro-Russian demonstrators to be listed as "Claimed support" or "Claimed participants". - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested an edit, see below. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree to a 'claimed' for both bits. Should I ask for an edit request? RGloucester  — ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * SNA says they are Right Sector were there 'defending' the march, a primary source but it's all I got--Львівське (говорити) 02:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

At official Right Sector website "Так, бійці «Правого сектора» та інші українські патріоти понесли втрати вбитими та пораненими. Проте втрати серед російських терористів були набагато більшими, а саме явище «сепаратистів» у Одесі зникло як фактор. Усе це – заслуга об’єднаної патріотичними почуттями громадськості." "Yes, the men "the right sector" and other Ukrainian patriots suffered losses in killed and wounded. However, the toll of Russian terrorists were much higher, namely the phenomenon of "separatists" in Odessa disappeared as a factor. All this - the merit of a united patriotic feelings of the public."

http://pravyysektor.info/articles/ato-po-narodnomu-abo-chomu-ne-vladimir-putin-ne-vviv-vijska/ http://archive.is/y12mT

Some hate speech more "May 2, 2014 was another bright page of our national history. During this day, despite the efforts of the MUP, indifferent public abolished the putin Sabbath and ordinary mercenaries degenerates in Odessa."

So, they obviously took part in clashes and murder and are proud of it. Cathry (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that clinches it. Львівське started this section, saying he could find no confirmation that Right Sector was involved, whereas all he had to do was go to Right Sector's own Web site! He usually has no trouble citing Ukrainian-language Web sites. GF? – Herzen (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of intentionally ignoring Right Sector's website when I literally just posted info saying they were involved? --Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This may sound ridiculous, but actually Right Sector's claim about their participation does NOT prove their participation IMO. It could easily be self-PR, or a conscious information provocation. It's really a very merky, controversial organization. Basically no one saw them doing anything in real life, yet they constantly show themselves up in media scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.71.40 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that's your personal POV and unsourced Original research. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

New information from the OSCE
The latest daily update from the OSCE has included some information about the Odessa fire:

I'm not sure about 'neighbouring regions', as Transnistria does neighbour Odessa Oblast, but it seems like the idea of a stream of Transnistrians participating has been disproven. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * well there were two claims, one that they were among the dead (i guess disproven) and separately that they were among the arrested. Of course, many more were arrested than killed. --Львівське (говорити) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the 'claimed' bit in the infobox will resolve this issue, as it is still 'claimed' that they participated even if they were not among the dead. We'll have to late for the final report. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess my concern would be putting 'claimed' in and then when the final report is issued, others go "it's just the Ukrainian authorities claiming, they're lying" (I have ESP) --Львівське (говорити) 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, these are not even 'Ukrainian authorities', but regional authorities. I don't think they have any interest in lying, and if they really wanted to stir the pot, they'd say that many of the dead were Transnistrians. If the OSCE gives credence to the report, given that Russia participates in the OSCE, it is hard to say any such thing. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * well the SBU is national, these arent like state police —Львівське (говорити) 17:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about the SBU. The OSCE press release says the report will be given by the Regional Bureau of Forensics. 'Regional' meaning 'Oblast'. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There were definately no Transnistrians or even Russians killed. Read this Kyiv Post bit. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * good read, thanks, this article provides a lot of great info and clarity (not that we couldnt do better on our own, pfft) --Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add THIS information from the OSCE May 9th report.
 * "On May 9th, the city witnessed several small-scale events commemorating Victory Day. The monitoring group from the OSCE observed a group of 250 activists opposed to the Government commemorating the victims of the 2 May events; the gathering ended peacefully"

at the end of the aftermath section. Source: http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/118417 BloodofIndependence (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A minor gathering like that isn't really relevant. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2014
Please add this to end of the 2nd paragraph in the "casualties" section: It was later determined that most of those who died in the fire were from Odessa, and that a minority were from neighbouring regions.

RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the page is no longer protected. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Paramilitary involvement
If anybody can provide sources for this, milhist tag can be restored by undoing this edit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There was no paramilitary involvement. Why are people obsessed with claiming that this was a military conflict, when it wasn't? It was a civil demonstration turned into a violent riot.


 * No reliable sources have used the word "war", or the word "battle", and this event particularly was a matter of "street battles", and "civil law enforcement matters" which are expressly not covered by the scope. So, if you'd please take your project banner out of here, we'd all be very happy.  RGloucester  — ☎ 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * because some people want to frame this as a civil war or whatever --Львівське (говорити) 03:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'pregnant' woman of Odessa
A post-event picture should what seemed to be a pregnant woman, not killed by the fire. Source: http://observers.france24.com/content/20140513-strangled-woman-odessa-photo-ukraine

"The photo was taken by a woman who goes by the name “Alena”. Alena says she went to the scene the day after the fire to search for a relative who had disappeared. She first published the photo on May 3 in a Facebook album retracing her visit through the building. She then reposted it in on her Facebook wall on May 7, along with a short explanation. She wrote that, following numerous reactions to this photo, she wanted to clarify the context in which it was taken. She says she took it on the building’s fourth floor, and that she regrets not photographing more angles of the body in order to help understand the reasons for her death.

In the same post, Alena says that the dead woman was rather old and that she doubts she could have been pregnant, contrary to the rumours circulating online. In the photo, the woman indeed appears to be at least 50 years old. Meanwhile, journalists in Odessa asked both the local hospital and the morgue that dealt with the victims whether they had heard of this mysterious woman. Both establishments said that there were no pregnant women among the victims. The Ukrainian authorities confirmed this. One of our sources also told us he exchanged emails with a relative of the woman. This source claims the victim had “nothing do to do with the separatists” and was simply an employee of the trade union house. Medical reports conclude that most of the victims died due to the fire, and some from gunshot wounds, which the authorities say could be stray bullets. However, as many Internet users have pointed out, the woman’s position on the desk seems rather strange. We showed the photo to a coroner. This was his reaction: “We cannot exclude the possibility of asphyxiation. However, the body’s position does not correspond with what you would expect would happen when someone suddenly loses consciousness. You would expect to find them on the ground. This position, with her bottom on the desk, makes me think that someone placed her there. The absence of any trace of the fire in the room also makes asphyxiation seem unlikely, though of course we cannot completely rule out the emission of toxic gases, since we don’t know when the window was opened.” The doctor added that strangulation, or a strike on the head, are both possibilities that could explain her death.

A provided video of the events from outside have at 0’23 minutes, you can hear a woman scream; later, at 2’10, someone waves a Ukrainian flag out of one of the building’s windows. Some believe this proves the pro-Kiev ultranationalists committed violence acts; others say the flag could have been waved by pro-Russians seeking to discredit their enemies."

The article is written well, and is from a general neutral point-of-view. Since this incident is being widely circulated, maybe some clarification for people so as to get a neutral and factual account. BloodofIndependence (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't relevant at all for this article. It is tabloid gossip, pure and simple. We don't care about what happened to some random lady. We care about the overall events. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is part of general reaction to the event. As she is a victim of the event, and that her death is especially being used as part of overall anger about the event in general. I would say that it is very relevant to the event. It is similar to how archduke Ferdinand or other such trigger events, like the Boston Massacre or Boston Marathon Bombing triggered reactions.

And the source is from a legitimate international news agency, based in France, operating since 2006. Not a tabloid.

Additional sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/05/odessas-fire-examined http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/euromaidan-pr-moscow-journalist-says-there-was-no-pregnant-woman-in-odesa-trade-unions-building-347198.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140510-ukraine-odessa-russia-kiev-twitter-world/ http://www.ibtimes.com/moscow-ukraine-war-worries-mind-russia-celebrates-world-war-2-victory-1581975

BloodofIndependence (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The IB Times article mentions this, and I think this is all that's worth mentioning in the article virtually verbatim (that IBT and F24 mention the pregnant woman makes it somewhat notable in of itself: I would also like to point out that economist and national geographic both failed verification, and KP never reported on this directly —Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

= Which I pointed out. The article said that it was confirmed there was no 'pregnant' woman among the victims. The victim in question was verified by doctors and eye witness to be an older woman. The main point is that propaganda is being used to continue the portrayal as pregnant which increased tensions. The event is being used as a 'flashpoint' trigger events like archduke and the Boston massacre to condone violence against the perpetrator. BloodofIndependence (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't delve into tabloid yellow journalism. Please take such things elsewhere. I cannot believe you are equating this with the assassination of the Archduke of Austria. The passing mention she has in some articles does not make her encyclopaedic. There is quite a difference, as we are WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um. "We don't care about what happened to some random lady." Who is "we"? Please speak for yourself. This is quickly becoming an iconic photo. Also, do I detect a hint of ownership about this article? USchick (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't even start the damn article. "We" is the encyclopaedia as a collective object. Many people died, and many were burnt. We don't focus on one person for human interest because that's what the newspaper do. We do not. We are creating a tertiary source. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * how many well known sources discussing this as 'controversial' would be required to pass notability? I'm not petitioning one way or the other, just trying to get a bearing --Львівське (говорити) 15:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a bright line. If there is a good reason to add it into the article, and it is well sourced, fine. But we should be wary about appeals to emotion (innate in specifying that she was a "pregnant" woman, as opposed to just a woman), and especially given the murky nature of events. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since "we" do not focus on recent news, would anyone care to explain the significance of the date May 2 in the title of this article? Why is this date important, other than to highlight the recent nature of the event? USchick (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of preciseness, so people know which "clashes" we are referring to? There have been plenty of battles/clashes/skirmishes in the history of Odessa, and there are likely to be more. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Read this bit, here:


 * Proportion, see? In proportion, this woman isn't particularly relevant. This event had huge consequences for the Ukrainian unrest, and to emphasise one dead woman because she's "pregnant" seems like WP:UNDUE weight in that context. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has already been established that the woman is not pregnant. Just because you don't care about individuals who participated and lost their lives in this event, please don't speak for the rest of the world. Please consider that this could have just as easily happened at your work and you could have been the one in the photo. Thanks. USchick (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the type of emotional appeal that isn't appropriate. If I were to have died, I would be dead. So what? That's not what we are dealing with here. We are objectively writing an article on the events and their implications, not memorializing people that died, no matter how tragic their death. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What's not appropriate, is your personal opinion about what people should care about. People are perfectly capable of making these decisions on their own. I'm not advocating for including the photo. You can have the last word on this issue, I don't plan to answer. USchick (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I cited Wikipedia policy to that effect. People can care about whatever they like, but this encyclopedia has policies that control what is appropriate content. As I said, I have no opposition to a brief mention of the controversy, if it is sourced. We could not use the photo anyway, as it isn't free. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)