Talk:Bucha massacre/Archive 2

I noticed someone placed "allegedly" in the lede "The Bucha massacre was a slaughter of civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha, allegedly by Russian troops involved in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Seriously? If civilians are dead, their hands tied behind their back, and shot in the head, who did that? Did they all do it to themselves? I have not seen any source challenge the fact it was the Russians, and there are plenty of articles that indicate it was. I move that the allegedly is removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not.

Particularly when the Ukrainians have been repeatedly caught lying about such things and are waging a massive propaganda war.

Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN have the Ukrainians been accused of murdering their own people after tying their hands behind their backs and leaving them on the streets of Russian military-occupied towns??50.111.59.42 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations against Ukraine are that the civilians are casualties of war and weren't targeted, but the people taking the pictures tied their hands or put blindfolds on the bodies before taking pictures, to change them from war casualties into war crimes. It's a stretch, but not *completely* outside of the range of possibilities. It's a very risky thing to do, as it could be discovered. So far, no evidence of this has been found. Artificial Silence (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might wash if we were only looking at a few bodies and pictures taken by the same photographer/s. On this scale, such claims come across as apologism. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does it feel to peddle propaganda for the Russian dictatorship when they commit war crimes? 108.46.55.212 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Until proven by indpendent bodies and investigation it should be kept. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed. I also wrote it in a more neutral tone. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources have so far suggested that it was faked, or that anyone else is responsible, except for Russia, as they were the occupying power. There is plenty of RS here to indicate it was Russia, including eye witness accounts. If anyone is proposing that some other country did this, or that it was faked, then they should bring forth some RS to support that proposition. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As only opposing countries have done finger pointing towards the Russian Forces, and local residents are not a verified source(an extremely easy to make lie), the first sentence of the article should have "alleged" too. There is no resolution from the UN on this, there is no Court of Justice that ruled on this. Let's not take war propaganda of either side as word. Desuwulf (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Too easy to succumb to this sort of emotional appealings and early reports. It will take some time for a better secondary sources to emerge. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians did, videos emerged of same people on streets before that where in basement wearing white ribbons indicating they are Russia sympathizers, molested by Ukrainians, then shot dead, then dragged on streets, also on separate video filmed on same day. Also video of same street empty without bodies on same day emerged. And this is not alleged but in article we should replace Russian atrocities with Ukrainian atrocities. Loesorion (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I think we should attribute the claims to Ukraine. Journalists and Western governments have not conducted independent verification yet. We don't know what claims are true and what information has been lost or misunderstood in the fog of war and the haste to report these alleged war crimes. RSs are beginning to avoid the "it appears"; once they fully abandon it, then we should also. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Allegedly' should be kept. As far as whether it was Ukrainiane's "false flag" operation, there is suspicion that ethnic Russians & Russian sympathisers who were residents of Bucha were victimised, and the corpses are theirs. The word "alleged" still has merit. It needs to be there. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe it's reasonable or not, it's true that these are still alleged to be committed by Russia, not confirmed to be. AriseYeWretchedOfTheEarth (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I think Russia was responsible. But using the term war crime suggests a formal determination through convictions in court or a determination by an international body(like the ICC). A NPOV would require us to use "alleged" for now, I think, or at l:east some way of making it clear no legal determination has been made. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly is necessary to be on the page, because it has to be unbiased. Unless international organisations would confirm it to be Russian act, or by Russian opinions, it should be treated as "allegedly" SwampKryakwa (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using "alleged" or "allegedly" isn't always neccessary, but it often is wise / more accurate to use it.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the verbiage to use depends on a lot of factors. The word "allegedly" is typically used in criminal courts when the standard of proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". However, in this article, there appears to be eye-witness testimony to support who committed the killings. In addition, this is not a court of law and many articles cite that the Russian army was the ones who committed the killings. Given the evidence and widespread coverage of the incident(s), I believe that one could make the argument to remove the term "allegedly". There have been several articles to "fact-check" the claims (see https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238) and unless there is evidence to support the contrary, the use of allegedly is not needed. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jurisdicta This article only refutes the Russian rebuttal, it doesn't refute their denial. Them lying doesn't prove that they were the perpetrators. The proper source would be the testimonies of eyewitnesses that blame the Russian troops. ObsidianPotato (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of 5 April, BBC is still using the term "alleged" elsewhere in their reporting. Example: "US President Joe Biden has called for Russian President Vladimir Putin to be tried for war crimes as evidence emerges of atrocities allegedly committed by Russian forces in Ukraine."

I don't know whether including "allegedly" comports better with other Wikipedia articles, but clearly BBC currently disagrees with you that the term "allegedly" is no longer needed, so I don't think citing their fact-checking is persuasive for this specific issue of language. Scuoise (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am against “allegedly”, first of all because it is Wikipedia policy to avoid using it, but more importantly because really? CNN has journalists on the ground there. Those bodies aren’t staged. I saw a mention further down that the Washington Post had also verified the video, and probably others by now. CNN is also showing satellite imagery showing the same bodies in the same places on March 18, when the city was under exclusive Russian control. If there is concern about not being mean to Putin, we can avoid saying in wikivoice that Russians did it, and confine ourselves to quoting while simply saying that the bodies were found. I don’t think NPOV stretches to amplifying obvious lies. We should simply note the Russian denial in the lede, and quote the Russian disinformation in its own section. Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that whether to use the term "allegedly" should foremost be based upon reliable sources' reporting of events, which itself we can usually expect to reflect judicial proceedings. You mention CNN, and it is noteworthy that a CNN article from several hours ago reports the following:

"The shocking images of the carnage in Bucha were captured by Agence France-Presse on Saturday, the same day Ukraine declared the town liberated from Russian troops. Accounts of alleged Russian atrocities are emerging as its forces retreat from areas near Kyiv following a failed bid to encircle the capital."

This is not about avoiding being mean to Putin, as you phrased it, but about accurately representing what reliable sources of information state about the topic. Those sources are still using the language of allegations to describe responsibility. Scuoise (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of Tuesday afternoon, Western news sources are overwhelmingly concluding that Russian military are responsible for these mass-murders. Wiki may have to take a stance of neutrality, but it doesn't have to reflect stupidity.50.111.59.42 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What overwhelming conclusions are you citing? I agree that there is apparently strong evidence that Russian forces are responsible, but these sources are in fact using the term "alleged".

• BBC, Today: "There is mounting international anger over the alleged killing of civilians in Bucha, a town near the capital Kyiv."
• CNN, Yesterday: "The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, together with the pre-trial investigation bodies, the military command, and the Military Law Enforcement Service, are working to document alleged crimes committed by Russian troops, she said."
• DW, Today: "This follows Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calling out Merkel and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy by name late on Sunday when talking about the alleged killing of civilians in Bucha."

I do not see any "overwhelming" consensus among Western news sources to avoid using the term alleged. Scuoise (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scuoise, your cites support your argument, but there are many other articles that do not use the term "allegedly". See Satellite images show civilian deaths in Ukraine town while it was in Russian hands | Reuters, Polish president said it's 'hard to deny' genocide in Ukraine after images of civilians killed emerge (msn.com), Bucha Killings in Ukraine Lead Germany, France to Expel Russian Diplomats (newsweek.com), Biden urges war crimes trial after Bucha killings (yahoo.com). Notwithstanding, I agree with the suggestion below by Elinruby and substitute "allegedly" with "reportedly". Jurisdicta (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this will change in a day or two. But I don’t care enough about this to argue about it. But please, if we really must indicate some doubt (and I am no longer in favor of this given the eyewitness testimony) please let’s use “reportedly” or something else instead of the deprecated “allegedly”. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with that person. The photos in the article are not gratuitous but are descriptive and essential to conveying the topic.

I would also point out the following photo, which is from the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust--

If you enlarge the photo, you will see it contains hundreds of dead bodies.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who disagreed with the external links being used, I appreciate this matter being brought up here and on my user page. My main objection to these images being included is that they were gratuitous only in that there were three external links being used here, which seems excessive to me. I understand that these images are noteworthy, but I personally don't see the benefit to the average reader in providing an external link to these three images in the main article, and including three in a sidebar list seems to violate

MOS:SHOCK

, but that deserves a separate discussion here).

Here is the revision in question, if other editors wish to express an opinion on the topic. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully point out that

WP:GRATUITOUS

does allow for graphic images, if they meet certain criteria.

For example, the holocaust photo (above) has been accepted into the Wikipedia Holocaust article. If you click on it, it contains hundreds of dead bodies (all severely starved and then killed).

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Perhaps if it was one external link, I would not think the usage was gratuitous. But I am happy to be overruled if editors do favour their inclusion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this alleged, unconfirmed, possibly set-up situation even compared to the Holocaust in any context? S0793217 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because both involve the killing of unarmed civilians (of course, unless you also want to believe propaganda that somehow Ukraine sent it's own troops kilometers behind enemy lines [an already risky proposition] back in March to make a "set-up" - of course, conspiracy theories never make sense, else they couldn't be conspiracies). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple images depict corpses. Some are blurred and some are masked, but it all seems a little distasteful. I understand Wikipedia is not to be censored, but due respect should be paid until more tasteful representations can be found. For example, Srebrenica massacre's images depicts the graves. Of course, the graves (except for the mass grave) are not dug yet. Anyway, I just think some different images should be selected. Until then, what isn't indecent should remain — at least in my opinion. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Respect the dead" isn't a backdoor to censoring the images IMO. Firestar464 (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRATUITOUS material either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you really just ask for "tasteful images"... of a fucking massacre? Volunteer Marek 03:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have kind of a point. There's a balance between "not censored" and not being gratuitously indecent. Images should still abide by the general image use policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "gratuitously indecent" mean here? For that matter what is a "tasteful image" of a massacre? One where the corpses are wearing tuxedos? Come on. By definition this is something awful. The pictures are going to be awful. Volunteer Marek 04:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean we need to include more pictures than needed to adequately illustrate the event. Do we really need multiple depictions of corpses? Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Are we really treating the material in an encyclopedic way if we just include multiple examples without further thought? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, every photo is representative of a different aspect of the massacre, as reported.

1) Citizens shot down in the street. 2) Bodies of killed people burned (hiding evidence of torture?), 3) Wrist-bound people executed in basements 4) citizens killed by RPGs and bullets in their cars.

Wikipedia does not try to make depictions of atrocities more tasteful. Wikipedia does allow direct depiction of atrocities.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I see (from top to bottom) is: A) dead people lying facedown on the street in broad daylight (one of them appears to have wrists bound) B) two burnt corpses C) a heavily damaged car with a corpse within it D) dead people in a basement. C shows that people in clearly civilian vehicles were targeted, and should thus be kept. However, A and D essentially illustrate the same concept (that unharmed people were very deliberately killed): we don't need two examples of it. B is just gruesome and doesn't add much to the previous. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mebigrouxboy.....

I would also point out the following photo, which is from the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust--

If you "click" to enlarge the photo, you will see it contains hundreds of dead bodies.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which in the context of illustrating the sheer scale of the Holocaust might be appropriate. Simply because a different kind of image is appropriate on another article does not mean that mildly similar images are appropriate here. That is just as false equivalence. Each article should be treated on a case-by-case basis. If we can illustrate the topic just as well without having to include unnecessary duplicates of potentially offensive material, then that is exactly what should be done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have four points of response, none of which I consider stand-out. Regardless,

1. The Holocaust was a gigantic event, a true and horrible calamity. Everybody knows this. So, a person learning about the Holocaust already knows this. But when it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian War, not every browser will know what's in store for them with the Bucha massacre.
2. The image shows many dead. The images at Bucha are numerous, and show only a few dead. It has been argued they show the extent of types of killing, but they just extend the shock of the killings throughout the read.
3. The Holocaust's image strengthens what the reader's understanding of what they read, while the images are seemingly added in just to show the images.
4. It has been much time since the Holocaust. It has not been much time since Bucha.

Mebigrouxboy (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish editors would cool it with censoring Wikipedia because seeing a corpse spoils their morning coffee. This is an article about a massacre, there are no 'tasteful' images of a massacre, and it is not gratuitous to show images of a massacre in an article on a massacre.

WP:GRATUITOUS talks about 'vulgar, obscene, or offensive' materials, which describes none of these photos. The only difference between the text of this article and the images is that you are reading the text from a clinical distance, and images evoke visceral understanding of what happened, which is harder to view from the same distance. Please try not to let your personal discomfort about seeing reality prevent us from doing the justice in truthfully covering this event. Melmann 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Fairly simple: It's a massacre. The pictures do illustrate different aspects of what has taken place, as per Chesapeake77. Depictions of the massacre are appropriate, and by default they will not be "tasteful". I approve of the fact that the image of the burnt, naked victims has been blurred out of respect for their human dignity. But asking for "tasteful" depictions of a massacre is grossly tasteless in itself. Trigaranus (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what about it? Many people come to Wikipedia as a news source, and I believe that the images, which only show a single type of destruction a pop, are inferior to images such as File:Bucha massacre aftermath, c. April 2022.jpg, which show efficiently the scale of damage against structures. In a way, the image is euphemistic. This isn't to say that I am pro-censorship of images, I just think better images could be chosen, and until images that don't show deceased corpses in high detail without consent from family members (it is a new event, after all) that the images shouldn't be there at all. That it is a 'fucking massacre' is irrelevant. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes are definitely not "tasteful". In contrast to the

The families and friends of the victims of the recent (Nov 2020) Axum massacre, which is classified by HRW and Amnesty International as a likely crime against humanity as part of the war crimes in the Tigray War, either didn't take photos, or they haven't yet got the photos out through the communication blockade, or they haven't published them under a free licence. If we had the photos on Wikimedia Commons, then there would be no justification in not using them at Axum massacre. Boud (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I agree with the argument that the images used here are somewhat gratuitous, as I have alluded to in a previous section on this talk page, and am very sympathetic to the arguments that RandomCanadian made here (who basically expressed my views better than I could). But yes, of course there are no "tasteful" images of a massacre, that is unfortunate wording. It doesn't negate the point made, though. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of words demonstrate the fact the point is fundamentally flawed. It is absolutely appropriate to include images where we can. They are not being used in a gratuitous way and serve an important purpose of illustrating the massacre this article is about. AusLondonder (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is a

image use policy), then, as I quote, that would be the preferred way to do so - Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article.. Arguing that these concerns are "tasteless" is the Wikipedia equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This entire argument is voided by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. We break cultural norms all the time, like the long-standing consensus to show images of Muhammad. That's not a good argument.Melmann 06:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nonsense and then there's nonsense. Simply because there is a content disclaimer does not mean anything.

WP:NOTCENSORED both explain how, despite the fact that this isn't censored, we still shouldn't go out of our way to display shocking or otherwise potentially offensive material just because it exists, even less so if it isn't strictly necessary to illustrate something. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you can really put a bowtie on a massacre. Even the most extreme dipictions, like the burning which is blurred, are highly representative and apposite pieces of imagery. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: As you rightly quoted policy states that "explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose" with a caveat that "editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article" - are you suggesting that that is your concern here? AusLondonder (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My concern is that some (not all) of the images don't add anything to the article (I think I made a detailed analysis higher up). Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the current article we only have 3 images of an actual massacre which seems reasonable and not overly excessive I think. But which particular images are you referring to as being purely gratuitous (file names please)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The images are still in the same order as when I made my comment previously (04:36, 5 April 2022), so those same concerns apply: 2 of them depict essentially the same thing, so we should pick one, and one does not add anything that would help reader comprehension. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to try to have the images as respresentative of different (more notable) aspects of the killings. For this reason I think the burning of bodies, as is being reported in a number of credible sorces, should be kept. Questions are being asked-- why were certain bodies burned-- but others not? Very likely to hide signs of torture.

Hence, although blurred, I think the (single) photo with the burned bodies is representative and should be kept.

I also agree that the two photos of victims with bound wrists are not needed. One is sufficient.

I recommend retaining the one taken in "daylight" because it's easier to see what happened. You have to look closely at the other "bound wrist" photo (shot in a dark basement) to then see the wrist-restraints.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use <br> if you need line breaks in your comments. Seems like a fair compromise, then, at least for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that multiple, similar images are unnecessary. I do think using some images is justified by the context and assists readers in understanding the circumstances particularly in light of Russian disinformation. Many shocking and memorable images shaped global perceptions of the Vietnam War, this is no different. I also note that despite the claims made originally regarding the Srebrenica massacre page, numerous confronting but important images are present on that page for example File:Exhumations in Srebrenica 1996.jpg and File:Exhumation Site in Čančari valley.jpg. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian, thanks for the coding tip <br>. Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not really portraying the same thing. One you have sporadically placed bodies found on public streets. Not quite the same as the BBC images of spersed bodies which seemed more indiscriminate (which (if we had a usable image of that) would definitely warrant separate inclusion). In another image you have a basement execution. The only thing they really have in common is that people are tied up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ukrainian

There is also a French article that says pretty much the same point.

Deutsche Welle also debunked claims the massacre was staged, and what's more, they explicitly say that Russian claims are incorrect.

The Associated Press fact checked Russian claims of "Crisis actors" being used.

Politifact arrives at similar conclusions to AP: PolitiFact | Russia pushes false crisis actor claims about video from Bucha, Ukraine

And finally, the smoking gun:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/world/europe/bucha-ukraine-bodies.html

Endless talk page discussions on how the Bucha massacre was only "alleged" and the lede should add words like "reported" should be put to an end once and for all.

To be precise, there were an unspecified number of mass casualty events, some of which involved unlawful killings of civilians. We're not disputing whether or not the Russian denials are bogus (that's pretty obvious). For stronger phrasing to be used, we needrelevant independent bodies such as the ICC or independent Human Rights organizations to come out and use language like "mass murder" or "war crime" Additionally, the majority of newspaper sources are still using cautious language, notwithstanding the examples you gave. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The massacre has been confirmed (i.e. photos are real, those people are dead).

2. The Russian rebuttals have been proven wrong.

3. Eyewitnesses blame the Russian troops for the killings.

And that's exactly what the article says.

WP:OR. ObsidianPotato (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure what 'majority' you are referring to??? The OVERWHELMING majority of press reports tonight (like 100%) all confirm the massacre(s) happened, and the Russian military committed the atrocities. And any good, solid press organ is more than adequate - we don't need politically-agendized orgs like HRW approval to use the proper language for the article. 50.111.59.42 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged should be immediately removed, there is no place for that in this article, considering the VAST overwhelming RS here that indicates what has happenned, in particular satellite photos confirming the dead in place two weeks ago. The only sources that are challenging any of this are Russian government, and we know what that is worth.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian If I understand the Wikipedia policy correctly, Russian government claims don't matter. If RS "indicate" what happened, then we should write "there are indications that X happened". If RS report the dead as a fact (which they do), then we should too (which we do). If the RS report "Russians killed those people" as a fact, then we should too.

Examples from other similar events:

- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59699556 ("The Myanmar military carried out a series of mass killings...")

- https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/russia_chechnya3/chech-summary.htm ("On February 5, 2000, Russian forces summarily executed...")

- https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/15/africa/central-african-republic-russian-mercenaries-cmd-intl/index.html ("Russian mercenaries implicated in the torture and killing...")

I don't understand the opposition to write "allegedly" when that's a direct quote from the source. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of information from reliable sources, not a place to draw logical conclusions.

WP:NotTruth. ObsidianPotato (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Be careful with that web. I have seen at least one "defake" on this website that take information from highly biased sources, even false ones. A while ago I saw an article where their source (twitter) used an inverted map (south-north)just to make their point. Use with care. 152.207.223.93 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, the "Reactions" section list, with its list format and flags, are despised by many editors as unencyclopedic quotefarms sourced to primary sources such as Twitter. Most of the statements are nearly identical condemnations. This article's "Reactions" section should be pruned and prosified. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Weak oppose While the format is unpopular, there is really no better way to write it in this case- prosifying sounds good on paper but can often read in a similar tone when the flags/bullet lists are removed. Going out of the way to delete sections because they use the {{flag}} template is rather unnecessary. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's so hard to remove the flags.... And prose is common on Wikipedia, in my experience. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already mostly  Done for the most part. Removing the flag salad will remove the temptation for it to keep growing to an unmanageable size with more encyclopedically irrelevant statements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protest (respectfully), It only took 4 minutes from the discussion being opened, and the first vote posted, to wholesale removing most of the section being discussed. That is unacceptable and inconsiderate behavior. Circumventing the edits of others, as RandomCanadian says they were doing, is a "tactic" and not reflective of consensus. Wikipedia editing is not supposed to be "tactical" (like a chess game) it is supposed to be consensus based on Wikipedia policy Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:I admit that not every country's reaction is needed. I am now neutral on this topic. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree, this is a convenient way of looking at each countries reactions.Lets see what the consensus is before removing them? Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: It isn't a convenient way; it just attracts lots of encyclopedically irrelevant material and encourages Twitter quotefarms. The article as it stands alreadny has dealt away with this and presents only the most relevant material with prose, not listcruft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make a major change like this, you really should be seeking consensus. This change should be reverted, and then the change made once a consensus is clear - there was no time given for anyone to give input here before it was deleted. Please revert or I will. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. I did the B part. Now of course you're free to disagree and Revert, but now you should provide policy-based reasons why we should include the list in the format you prefer. Complaining about "lack of time to give input" (when the problem was obvious and the solution equally so) is neither helpful nor convincing in the least. This is a current event, and stuff may change rapidly, and in this case, time is of the essence. Readers are coming to this article now, not in ten thousand years when we'll have ironed out every possible point of disagreement amongst Wikipedia editors over it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"(BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus" Standard policy to a MAJOR change is to seek consensus beofre you do it, as a number of editors have pointed out. We are now here discussing the change, you need to wait to see what editors say about it before it goes ahead. Thanks.(and at the moment, there appear to be more oppose votes) Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is the conventional method, whether it is "optional" or not.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, then their arguments are not convincing at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, no amount of !votes can justify the inclusion of obvious copyright violations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD "is an optional method of seeking consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy" WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS - we come to a consensus of opinion, yes its not a vote, but "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached" - which in practice means if an agreement can't be made, then the position most agree on is carried. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. (

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a very good reason why not to have such a list), then it doesn't really matter what the count is. Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose The flag listicle format looks messy, but the prose format really wasn't working out in conveying the right amount of relevant information. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that flag salad was pretty messy and had to be dealt with. Just listing bunch of quotes or opinions isn't good encycloledic material, and should be restructurised in the way that makes it into more of the meaningful section than the Twitterdump. I'm not sure about behavior of editor who removed it, as well as the result of their work SwampKryakwa (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but Oppose because it gives a quick overview on the reactions by different countries. If the sources are not the best one available (tweet) they can always be improved. But there's a "but": the reaction by Russia cannot be placed there. It's much more relevant and it should be made more visible and discussed more thoroughly, as I'm arguing here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your position that the Russian reaction should get closer attention. Although of course I don't believe the Russian reaction and consider it to be disinformation. Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666: Russia already has it's own separate section (Bucha_massacre#Russia_2)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm pretty sure at a certain point the section or the contents had disappeared... the article is changing so quickly. As it is now, it's perfectly fine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I have reinserted the old flag section - this should not have been removed until consensus has been achieved. Removing a section after 4 minutes of opening a discussion is not adequate time to declare a discsion finalised. There appears to be no consensus for this to be removed- it is currently being discussed here. Do not remove until the discussion comes to a consensus to do so. Thanks you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not reinstate the list as it was. I support converting it to prose, making sure all of the content (the most relevant, at least) gets included. As I wrote above, the reactions of Chile, for example, are just as relevant as those of an European country uninvolved in the conflict. --Bedivere (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  not an indiscriminate collection of information. We need to only include the information that is most helpful to readers, and which is actually note-worthy (as opposed to being trivial and routine formalities). Most countries will have said something about this: if we include everyone who said something about this, we'll end up providing nothing of value but an indiscriminate compilation, and won't be helping our readers figure out which of these are most relevant. That's why some amount of editorial judgement is required in order to keep the list to a manageable size and include the relevant information, in due proportion (we shouldn't allow half of the article to be a mere flag-salad listing of comments by individual diplomats). Limiting to countries that are closely involved (such as Russia and Ukraine, which each get a dedicated section), their neighbours (who are certainly closely affected by the war: either due to refugees, or the political situation this has generated); and major global countries which are involved in the crisis (such as the UN Security Council permanent members, like France, UK, USA, China [and Russia, were it not already included]) seems like an objective criteria: after all, what the Prime Minister of a country thousands of miles away said is of little consequence or importance if that's just what they said and nothing further came out of it (and, obviously, to take your example, Chile doesn't have much it can do, nor stands to be directly affected by the consequences of this - Moldova, or Estonia, to take as examples, obviously do). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment the reactions are not indiscriminate, they accurately detail international responses to the massacre. Previously, they were in a double-column, which made them compact and readable (reads as single column if read on a cell phone). A compromise might be to use a table.
• Note: In North America it is now late at night. It is good that the flag section has been reinstated (so that people may see it and review it). Since it is bedtime for North America I recommend allowing a good ammount of time for this discussion to continue (tomorrow, NA time) (to compensate for the discussion time that was lost today)-- people from other parts of the globe, of course can discuss whenever they wish. Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they accurately detail international responses to the massacre" - no they don't, they just indiscriminately quote from official statements without regards to whether those statements have any encyclopedic significance whatsoever. Simply because something is present in a source, or has been said, does not mean that it goes in an encyclopedia, which is a summary of information. We don't include every country's reaction to September 11 (to take something NA readers will be familiar with even if you wake them up at midnight), neither should we here. There needs to be some judgement given into not turning this into an indiscriminate listing. As for "compromise", the ideal solution is turning it into prose (like at the September 11 article, and nearly every single other encyclopedia article), as I attempted to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to the method and wholesale removal of this section. The reference to the Swedish reaction for example not only included a condemnation but also information that the Swedish PM pledged support in the form of funding and staff to the investigation by the ICC. So at least in that case it wasn't an "indiscriminately quote from official statements without regards to whether those statements have any encyclopedic significance whatsoever." But I do agree that a prose section would be better. Yakikaki (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support the idea of making the Reactions section much more readable and concise, without relying too much on a long list of flags and overlapping statements. One option would be grouping similar reactions + sanctions/diplomatic repercussions together as @RandomCanadian: did. KajMetz (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in general. We need to get past this lazy idea of just including condemnations and cookie-cutter reactions and extend our focus on useful encyclopaedic content. (also see EEng's Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment). Of course US/UK/France/EU/etc are going to condemn it. Obviously I know people will want the info somewhere, so let's use dedicated Reactions to Bucha massacre articles, rather than clog up the main article with it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally Support I would support pruning the reactions section to include notable international responses which is why I added comments by Emmanuel Macron yesterday regarding additional European sanctions to target Russian oil and coal industries; this section was removed and replaced with a lengthy list of standard expressions of shock and outrage sourced from Twitter. Bizarrely, Macron's comments (some of the more specific and relevant) were excluded from the flag-list. This happened several times where well-sourced prose was replaced with generic Tweets. I re-added Macron's comments twice after they were removed without explanation. This meant for many hours we had the fairly standard reactions of Chile and New Zealand but not UNSC and EU member France discussing specific sanctions on Russia. I would support a few lines noting condemnation, outrage etc from less-involved countries not proposing additional action against Russia. Then a larger section addressing new sanctions, ICC referrals, diplomatic expulsions etc. AusLondonder (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove flag list I prefer it in the prosified format in which RandomCanadian turned it into, which only focused on the reactions of relevant nations. "Flag reaction" lists are mostly useful when a section or article is purposefully meant to include every single international reaction to a certain event. Such as International response to the Beslan school siege. However, given the width/importance of this article, which has so far proven to be the most notorious incident in the invasion, one can expect to see numerous countries giving their responses. Reactions from, say, Qatar or Somalia would be irrelevant to the situation, but responses from Poland, Belarus, Estonia the United States, etc. are. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rewrite & prune - with the flag salad, the "reactions" page takes almost half the body of the article. However, with the relevance of the event (or rather, the discovery of the event) and the variety, number and strength of international responses (diplomat expulsions etc.), this entire section might warranty its own article, e.g. International responses to the Bucha massacre. ObsidianPotato (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good proposal, will take it into consideration. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen accounts of booby-trapped bodies left in Bucha. Can we add them?

Can you list the sources? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-war-april2-2022-1.6406411 https://www.voanews.com/a/accusations-of-russian-atrocities-in-ukraine-prompt-calls-for-tougher-sanctions-prosecutions/6513124.html https://globalnews.ca/news/8731685/ukraine-bucha-bodies-russia-war/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/03/ukraine-town-littered-with-bodies-shot-in-the-head-by-russians-16395917/

talk) 04:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems like a reliable list with the exception of Metro,

which has a rather negative entry on RSP. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To be precise, those sources report that the bodies are being moved gingerly with cables (or not being touched at all) out of fear that the bodies might possibly be booby-trapped; none of those sources report that "booby-trapped bodies were left behind in Bucha." Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian sources are very solid. I’ve also seen this said on CNN, although I am not necessarily advocating that we go find a link. (I saw this on television) just adding it as further confirmation Elinruby (talk)

Reliable sources currently use "Bucha massacre", "Bucha atrocities" and "Bucha killings" to describe the events in Bucha. Many reliable sources do not use such a shorthand description, but refer to "atrocities in Bucha" or "killings in Bucha". Taken this into account, it does not appear that "Bucha massacre" is a generally accepted or preferred term in reliable sources.

With regard to the facts, as evidenced in reliable sources, there are a number of disconnected events in Bucha that can be described as massacres, atrocities, or killings. There is as of now not sufficient support in reliable sources for the hypothesis that the majority of those events were part of an overarching plan of carrying out a (single, large) massacre. Looking at the various events, the term "atrocities" would best describe them collectively. For example, torture would generally not be described as a "massacre", and that term has not been used to any significant extent to describe other instances of torture in history.

For these reasons, the title "Bucha atrocities" would better describe the content of the article, while following established vocabulary found in reliable sources.

For now, I suggest to follow the situation for some time, and proceed to a formal vote later.   Cs32en Talk to me  23:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak agree. To me “massacre” implies that many killings that take place all at the same time, and I don’t think that’s exactly what happened. I am not watching this particular issue but I’d probably be in favor of a “atrocities” if it came to a vote. Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every news report describes it as a massacre that I've heard, with "genocide" being used by politocos when interviewed as a secondary report (I don't agree with that term's wider implications in this incident). "Massacre" seems fine. 50.111.59.42 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. From the most reliable reporting we have at this time, the events in Bucha are in line with many other events currently described as "massacre" on other pages. It is not necissary that "majority of those events were part of an overarching plan of carrying out a (single, large) massacre." Pages such as Nanjing Massacre, Axum massacre, Simele massacre, and Maraş massacre (to name just a few) currently use the word "massacre" to describe large, uncoordinated killings and other abuses carried out over some days or even weeks across large geographical areas. In fact massacre is a much more common description of these types of events than "atrocities." There are hundreds of pages that use "massacre" in the title and only very few (for example 1978 Villupuram atrocity) that use alternate wording. Given that much reporting currently describes the events in Bucha as a "massacre," and this is currently a common term on Wikipedia for many similar events, using alternate wording would tend to have the effect of distancing the events in Bucha from other similar events. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Two thousand more Eritrean soldiers had arrived by 17:00. They started firing indiscriminately on a massive scale against the civilian residents of Axum." (From Axum massacre.) This indicates a systematic execution of atrocities that has not been found to have occured by reliable sources in the case of Bucha. Systematic execution may be presumed in the case of torture, yet these acts, while clearly being atrocities and war crimes, were not indicriminate, which would be a major characteristics of a massacre.   Cs32en Talk to me  17:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of articles that use the word "massacre" in the title, and "systematic execution" is absolutely not a commonality between them. Even in the Axum massacre (just a random example) other parts of the article indicate that many killings were scattered. As far as I can tell, the article states that the "massacre" was not just one particular incident, but rather a series of killings:

"A witness who spent two months "going from village to village on foot" around the Tembien and Naeder Adet areas stated in Ethiopia Insight that some of the killings were done by Eritrean soldiers who killed people in their homes."

I just don't see any evidence to support the idea that "systematic execution" is a necessary or sufficient condition among the many articles that use the term "massacre." And as I mentioned, alternate wording seems to be very rare, so I suggest that using an alternate wording would be implicature which I think is unwarranted here based on what we know so far. -- S.dedalus (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a massacre takes place, it is likely that unrelated or scattered acts of cruelty will also take place. But it is called a massacre due to the main event, not because of the scattered violence. Unfortunately, dictionaries are not very explicit on the aspect of the definition, yet

• the Cambridge Dictionary defines "massacre" as "an act of killing a lot of people" (an act, not multiple instances!) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/massacre
• Merriam-Webster defines "massacre" as "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre

It is essential to define a massacre in this way, i.e. that it constitutes one event or a series of events connected by a common intent. Otherwise, we would need to call the U.S. war in Afghanistans a massacre as well, because there were multiple instances of soldiers going door to door, killing people and committing atrocities.   Cs32en Talk to me  08:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much evidence that common intent is the standard applied in other articles on massacres. But even with regard to that standard, new reporting today strongly supports that common intent I believe [1]

"In two separate communications, Russian troops talk about questioning Ukrainian soldiers and civilians and then shooting them, according to The Washington Post, citing an intelligence official familiar with the findings. Some of the intercepted intelligence seems to match the locations of bodies found along the main road through Bucha, northwest of Kyiv. In one intercepted message, a soldier is seemingly heard telling another that they had shot a person riding a bicycle. Images of a dead body lying next to a bicycle recently surfaced following the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Bucha area. In another intercepted conversation, a man is heard saying, “First you interrogate soldiers, then you shoot them.”

-- S.dedalus (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The conversations are related to individual atrocities, according to the source. We would need some reliable source reporting common intent for a substantial part of the events, not just for a single atrocity.   Cs32en Talk to me  10:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:common applies here. If you want to state that sources do not use Bucha Massacre, you really need to provide some evidence. The Bucha Massacre seems to be the term most sources are now using. Looking at GHITS. "Bucha Massacre" gives 6,830,000 results, "Bucha atrocities" gives 222,000, "killings in Bucha" gives 3,660,000 and 4,100,000 hits for "atrocities in Bucha". "Bucha massacre" is the most common name for this unfortunate event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

In my location (Germany), I get about 32 million google news hits for "Bucha massacre", about 18 million hits for "Bucha atrocities", about 39 million hits for "Bucha killings". But some of these sources use quotation marks, some do not use these words as a compound expression, and some of the hits displayed by Google are not news sources. (I don't think that 39 million articles have been written about Bucha.)   Cs32en Talk to me  17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried the search in Google.de, and yes "Bucha killings" got more Ghits... however, wp:Commoname refers to the prevalence in English language sources "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Googles searches are pretty useless for this task. The number of hits is actually only a rough estimate, there is no way to tell how Google expands the search term to various alternative spellings and combinations, whether the newspaper was quoting someone else or not, and Google results are location specific (and even user-specific if you don't turn this function off). What we need to do is to establish, for a number of representative reliable sources, their preferred description in news reports (preferably the most general news reports, i.e. not reports by a single reporter on the ground, but texts that underwent extensive professional editing).   Cs32en Talk to me  08:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose,

WP:SNOW keep, see my entry here. Move has already been opposed, no need to proceed to another such process. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not a vote, so there is nothing to close here. A vote would need to be on a specific suggestion. If anything, such a suggestion may arise from the discussion here and may be put to a vote later. The previous requested move proposed a specific different wording that is not under discussion here.   Cs32en Talk to me  17:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed to my entry to show that per

WP:COMMONNAME this is widely considered to be named the "Bucha massacre." The proposed name I rejected is unrelated, but not my argument for rejection. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That was a reply to the procedural aspects of your statement. With regard to

WP:COMMONNAME: You point out several reliable sources using the expression "Bucha massacre" in their reporting. However, looking at your first example, The Guardian, you will find many articles on the events of Bucha that do not use the expression "Bucha massacre". While it is obvious that this expression has support in the reporting of reliable sources, this does not imply that it is the expression that best reflects the majority of reporting on the events of Bucha. Google search for Guardian content: https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=bucha&as_epq&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com   Cs32en Talk to me  18:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

My quick analysis of headlines from reliable sources often used on Wikipedia shows atrocities is used more often. Given

WP:COMMONNAME

, I would vote for Bucha atrocities or Atrocities in Bucha.

Qono (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an impressive list! Given that "massacre" is the most loaded term, the predominant usage of less loaded and more factual descriptions should lead us to use "Bucha atrocities", instead of "Bucha massacre", in the title.   Cs32en Talk to me  18:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, searching up "Bucha massacre" in English (with those exact quotes) reveals 10 million results; "Bucha atrocities" reveals 500,000. This is a vast exaggeration, attempts to overturn

WP:NPOV. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Google hits do not specifically count reliable sources, nor do they detect quotes. Do you actually think that 10 million articles in reliable sources have been written on the events? Obviously, this is bogus. What we need to do is to determine the preferred term in a number of reliable sources that can be considered representative. The list above is an important step in gathering such information.   Cs32en Talk to me  19:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of search results can be a useful measure. If we sharpen this a bit to search for pages where both words are included in the title using the search operator allintitle:, massacre turns up 11,700 versus 7,060 for atrocities, but 15,200 for killings. Limiting it further to news stories, I get 2,100, 382, and 1,930, respectively.

I'm not sure how to balance conflicting results from reliable sources, general search, and news search. Each recommends a different title. Favoring general Google web pages over reliable news publishers, and considering the recommendation to use neutral language, I can see the argument for Bucha killings as well. Qono (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've searched, Bucha Massacre is the most prevalent common name

WP:COMMONNAME

. I searched General google hits below, as well as searching newspaper titles only in Factiva.

I searched GHITs before and got this -

• "Bucha Massacre" :6,830,000 results
• "Bucha atrocities":222,000
• "killings in Bucha":3,660,000
• "atrocities in Bucha":4,100,000 hits

For the Factiva Database (commercial database searching all the world's newspapers)

• "Bucha Massacre": 1185
• "Bucha atrocities": 327
• "Bucha killings": 1119
• "war crimes in Bucha" 989 Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion seems like more than a bit of a waste of time when there appears to be no concrete problem with the current name. It's a massacre because after a certain volume, that's what a series of killings become. At a fairly indeterminate point, killings begins to feel a bit inadequate for discussing events of a certain magnitude (hence, also, mass killings). Atrocities, at this point, would be practically

  Iskandar323 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree, I'm not sure this debate is necessary. I think there is nothing inherently *incorrect* with Bucha Massacre, people seem happy using it, it would also appear to the common name. This almost esoteric discussion seems to be a a solution looking for a problem that isn't there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The term massacre is fine, seeing as it has been used in the past for events with far fewer casualties and involving only a single shooter. I would object to the use of the term "mass killings" however, which has a more specific meaning. (see section below: "Allegations of genocide in the lead") Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the picture of the dead people in the infobx titled "Photo of Bucha civilians *reportedly* killed by Russian soldiers". The only RS that denies it was Russia, are Russian State sources themselves. Is Wikipedia supporting the Russian line that Ukraine killed them? 07:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia's policy on

Neutral Point of View. 185.83.93.34 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I am pretty aware of that policy, but to imply that the Russians didn't do it, as this wording does, would be fringe (Please see

WP:FRINGE) - you don't have to allow for fringe views with wording in an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

How does that wording imply Russian army units didn't do it? "Reportedly" means according to third party source, "allegedly" would mean according to someone who is involved.   Cs32en Talk to me  19:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the caption may be referring to the photo and not the event. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the photo from? I see no reason to give oxygen to what the Russisns are saying Elinruby (talk)<

WP:GAMING the system to push one narrative and silence another.JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If you see the definition on the fringe page

WP:FRINGE: " to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Currently, the mainstream view, from ALL the sources (bar Russian state) is that this was done by the Russians. The view that it was done by the Ukrainians is NOT a mainstream view, so it is fringe. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to make it clear, the caption should be "Photo of Bucha civilians killed by Russian soldiers". If we use "Photo of Bucha civilians *reportedly* killed by Russian soldiers" - it places some doubt about it ie it was reported that they did it, but it could have been someone else. There are no sources saying that anyone bar the Russians was killing people at Bucha. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no reliable source given for the assertion that the particular people shown in this photo had been killed by Russian soldiers. Also, there is no such source stating that this "reportedly" happened. It is also not obvious by any means that they were part of a group of larger group of people that have been killed by Russian soldiers, according to reliable sources. At this moment, we don't know whether they were killed by Russians or, for example, by artillery fire.   Cs32en Talk to me  09:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This from Reuters should be added ASAP :

The U.S. military is not in a position to independently confirm Ukrainian accounts of atrocities by Russian forces against civilians in the town of Bucha, but has no reason to dispute the accounts either, a senior U.S. defense official said on Monday.

Source : https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-cant-independently-confirm-atrocities-ukraines-bucha-official-says-2022-04-04/ 96.20.197.194 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we add that exact wording it would certainly raise some copyvio issues, but it could be reworded. Is there a specific section to place it in? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A rewording is indeed necessary. And since the statement accurately define the status of the massacre, it should be put in the intro. Also the intro insidiously read "The Bucha massacre was the killing of civilians by the Russian Armed Forces", yet there's no proof nor investigation that came to that conclusion. Copy/Pasting "reliable" sources do not trump the policy of neutrality and this first sentence already determine who is responsable of the massacre, when we aren't even sure if this is a massacre yet or just militia casualties (which would deny them the status of civilians) that have been used for political purpose. Anyone who knows just a little bit about history cannot deny that it is a possibility. Humans on any side are capable of horrible things. So we don't know the truth and acting like we do only serve to spread disinformation or propaganda (partisanship which is very, very unreasonably strong). 96.20.197.194 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add a couple of things. The word "refuted" is also used, again to imply that we possess the knowledge as to who is responsable, yet we don't. Refuted : prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove. A more appropriate word, or even a more accurate word, would be "disputed". And to expand on what I said about we can't know for sure yet, I'd like to point out that the US is one of the most powerful and competent country in the world. As for Ukraine it is not only a mere shadow of what it was even before 2014, but it is also considered to be one of the most corrupted country in the world. On one hand we have the USA who lied about WMD in Irak because they needed a legal justification to vindicatively invade a foreign country, on the other you have a corrupt and dysfuntinal country that now is desperately doing anything to involve the West in the war. It is not far fetched to say they could very well have perpetrated the massacre themselves (knowing they have REAL - not american ones - neo nazis). Israël did a similar thing to bring the US into the war against Egypt (USS Liberty) and the US planned to killed americans in the 60s to create public support for a war against Cuba. So considering all this, whoever is taking responsibilty monitoring this article should start doing a better job. 96.20.197.194 (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% 96.20.197.194. There seems to be some complete breakdown in how Wikipedia functions and the values it aims to promote. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly helpful re copyright: photos, text or other materials produced by the US government isn’t copyrighted. I’ll go find a link for that Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty definitive: [2] Elinruby (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original source. Quotes can be taken from there, with notability supported by press report (which does not need to be restated in detail). https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/   Cs32en Talk to me  07:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is so much effort being spent on discussing three days old statement that can be summed up as "we don't have our own data"? It wouldn't add anything to article.--Staberinde (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any German speakers with Der Spiegel subscription around, then there potentially could be relevant information in this article [3] as referred by this tweet [4].--Staberinde (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using translation programs to read German papers for a long time. They work very well (not like the old days).

Der Spiegel has very good quality reporting of the war in Ukraine. Good analysis too.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Der Spiegel has made it's own English translation of the article.

It reports that German intelligence recorded conversations between the Bucha killers. It will make the back of your neck cold.

German intelligence, the BND, also reports that such killings are not just done by some angry Russian soldiers, but are done as a "systematic program" (ordered from above) to control and scare the local populations.

You can read it Here.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put a reference to it in the "Russian units" section (I used the browser translate function, which worked really well). Yes, its pretty big news, and more proof that Russia will try to refute. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that the intercepts indicate that atrocities were ordered by commanders. Note that Der Spiegel says "Possible Evidence of Russian Atrocities" (i.e. not "of the Russian massacre" or something to that effect), and the wording of that paragraph should reflect the assessment of that source, and possibly other reliable sources reporting on the matter.   Cs32en Talk to me  16:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the systematically executed atrocities, possibly with the largest numbers of victims in the respective events, involve the killing of captured Ukrainian combatants. This should be reflected in the lead of the article, based on reliable sources.   Cs32en Talk to me  16:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I write the lede's second paragraph says that Russian attempts to deny the massacre have been widely refuted by numerous different sources.

Now, I'm not opposing that entry- I think rather positively of it, in fact, but why do we need to list the reactions of every single credible news source up there? Russia's denial is documented in the Bucha massacre#Russia 2 section, which also gives a thorough summary of the evidence contradicting the Russian Govt. If someone finds more credible sources debunking the Kremlin, then they don't have to go and put that in the lede necessarily. Will be adding an invisible comment. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now grouped them all into a note. BeŻet (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought it was a little excessive and redundant to list every news organisation which debunked the Kremlin propaganda. It definitely looks a lot better now with them grouped together in a note. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Bucha massacre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the first sentence of the lede from "The Bucha massacre was the killing of civilians by the

to "The Bucha massacre was the killing of civilians in the

This seems to be a deal-breaker for many editors on both sides. It might be useful to have a show of hands on which version better represents

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Both versions have a bit of a wording problem in terms of ordinary English grammar: "Forces" = plural, not singular; and Bucha did not "fight for and occupation". And is
  2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

  Boud (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) (minor fix: this was not during the 2014 invasion Boud (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC))[reply
  ]

I would want to see some evidence that most RS are not saying its the Russians, or " avoid explicitly saying "the Russians did it"" - somehow leaving it open? - the RS I'm looking at now are clearly saying the Russians did. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters (April 6): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-russia-what-you-need-know-right-now-2022-03-29/ - calls them "Bucha deaths" and quotes two conflicting claims

BBC (April 6): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61011022 - also "Bucha deaths" (although they later do mention "Attacks on civilians by Russian forces" when quoting Johnson)

CNN (April 6): https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/06/china/china-reacts-bucha-ukraine-atrocities-intl-hnk-mic/index.html - "raised the urgency of ongoing investigations into alleged Russian war crimes"

Can you share what you are looking at? Perhaps it's just a matter of citing those. ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to start putting RS here that simply state the Russians did it... but I'm warning you, its going to be a long list..... Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a long list, just two or three good ones - and then add them as references in the lede. Also see the wordings in other articles on Ukraine, e.g.

2022 Zhotomyr attacks, there seems to be a similar "issue" there. ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose version without attribution. There are plenty of RS residents' testimonies attributing responsibility to the Russian Armed Forces. There are no serious sources suggesting any other group of perpetrators, except for the official Russian government POV, which is debunked by RS. We don't name any particular individuals in this sentence. As a summary sentence for what the vast majority of sources say, the sentence with attribution seems reasonable to me. Boud (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeAs above - as stated, most RS I'm looking at simply state the Russians did this. There seems to be little question. I'll put together a list in a little bit. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There's no RS that can prove the russian are guilty of the crime, they can just speculate. Only a thorough investigation can bring forth real reliable evidences as to WHO is guilty. No one knows as of yet, not even the Pentagon (1). It is known that there were militia groups in Bucha (armed citizens, therefore not civilians), thus it is in the realm of possibilities that the bodies were theirs. So I can hardly imagine the depth of knowledge a Wikipedia editor or an american journalist could posess on the matter. There's nothing wrong in admitting we don't know. It's called wisdom. Ukraine is known as one of the most corrupt country in the world with real neo-nazis paramilitary battalions roaming its land, so if Israel could ressort to false flag by attacking the US to make them join them in the war against Egypt or if the US was ready to commit terrorist attacks on americans to increase the support for a war with Cuba, and let's not forget the WMD in Irak, Ukraine is more than capable to create a false flag to force the west to enter the war. One could even argue the survival of the neo-nazis paramilitary battalions and the Zelensky government depend on it. But no one knows, it is an ongoing war, so we should refrain from partisanship. 96.20.197.194 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I've seen the tragedy in Bucha is a combination of Russian war crimes, Ukrainian war crimes, and crossfire. I've seen at least one video showing a Russian APC (?) firing on a civilian on a bike, who was killed. I am fairly confident this was probably not isolated. Soldiers are usually trigger happy. In addition, many of the dead civilians are located next to shell craters, suggesting they were killed by either Russian or Ukrainian shelling. The NYT did a piece with satellite imagery on the massacre. Unintentionally of course, it shows that the impact craters and the bodies had been there for days: read, the civilians were killed in crossfire. And then there are numerous images of dead civilians with white armbands (a pro-Russian identifier) or next to Russian humanitarian aid packages. It is rather likely that the Ukrainians, who announced they were "cleansing" the town, saw civilians with with a white armband, erroneously declared them "Russian saboteurs" or collaborators, and killed them. Considering that the Ukrainians have been told that Russian saboteurs could be anywhere, and the violent actions they have taken since (arresting innocent civilians and beating them, opening fire on suspected "saboteurs" then finding out they were actually civilians), this is quite plausible.

  All this to say that the credible (read Western legacy) sources report very little on all this. It's either Russian propaganda (staged) or Ukrainian propaganda (greatest atrocity of the 3rd millennium), no nuance or investigation. And this reportage is in the midst of the perhaps the most intense information war in recent decades. In other words, I agree anon IP that second choice is best, but its rather unlikely you or I will find "credible" or "reliable" sources to construct an argument on this site. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:2C83:2FC2:B998:C97 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources that explicity state Russia committed the atrocities. As stated, there's plenty of sources that say Russia committed the atrocities, and don't entertain the fringe theory that Ukraine did it:

  "A horror movie’: Western leaders prepare new sanctions after Russia massacre" - https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-civilian-massacre-russia-denies-atrocities-20220404-p5aai3.html

  "A satellite image of Bucha in Ukraine appears to show bodies lying in the street nearly two weeks before the Russians left the town.The image from 19 March, first reported by the New York Times and confirmed by the BBC, directly contradicts Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's claim that footage of bodies in *:Bucha, that has emerged in recent days, was "staged" after the Russians withdrew." https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238.amp

  "Europe is united in its outrage over evidence of Russian atrocities in Ukraine." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/04/bucha-massacre-tests-europes-red-lines-russian-energy/

  "The original footage we analyzed unequivocally shows that the victims in Bucha are real, and indicate that Russian troops are responsible for killing innocent civilians." https://edmo.eu/2022/04/04/fact-checking-russian-disinformation-about-buchas-massacre/

  "The images rebut Russia's claim that the killing of civilians in Bucha, near Kyiv, took place after its soldiers had left town" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/world/europe/bucha-ukraine-bodies.html

  "Russia has repeatedly claimed, without proof, that Ukraine has staged such atrocities, but the Kremlin line is starkly contradicted by conditions on the ground and ample evidence of Russian attacks on civilian targets." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/eu-leaders-condemn-killing-of-unarmed-civilians-in-*:bucha-and-kyiv

  "the horrors of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine are increasingly coming to light. The death and destruction brought by Russia's war machine are on full display in Bucha" https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/03/europe/ukraine-bucha-horrors/index.html

  "Ukraine says Russian atrocities in Borodyanka, another town near Kyiv, are likely worse than in Bucha" https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-says-russia-killings-borodyanka-likely-worse-bucha-2022-4

  "What to Do About Russia’s Atrocities in Bucha" https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/what-to-do-about-russias-atrocities-in-bucha.html

  "Satellite Images of Corpses in Bucha Appear to Confirm Russian Atrocities" https://www.cnet.com/science/space/satellite-images-of-corpses-in-in-bucha-appear-to-confirm-russian-atrocities/

  "'Sickening' Russian atrocities in Bucha" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sickening-atrocities-bucha-70-russian-troops-kyiv-withdrawn/story?id=83866706

  "By the time the Ukrainians liberated Bucha on April 2, the streets were strewn with Russian atrocities. " https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/russia-bucha-killings-war-crimes-genocide/629470/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Revulsion at the atrocities committed by Russian forces in the Ukrainian town of Bucha dominates today's front pages" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/massacre-of-innocents-how-the-papers-covered-russias-atrocities-in-bucha

  I agree with some (SMH, Edmo, Slate, The Atlantic) but in a lot of cases I believe you're doing

  WP:OR. Either way, I'm happy to go with the consensus as long as we cite the right sources and make sure that we're not saying anything unverifiable. ObsidianPotato (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I could add more, but I hope I've made my point... but I'm not going into a long debate, defending each RS here. Point is, even if you don't agree with all these, there's still plenty of articles here that state Russia committed these crimes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding drone video of bicyclist killed by tank, NYT explicitly says Russian: [5] Elinruby (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Witness testimony keeps accumulating that Russian forces were responsible. Boud (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE - No reliable sources dispute who committed the massacre. That is the Wikipedia standard. If I am to opine, there is no reasonable dispute following the previously cited satellite images. Ergo, there is no basis to not clearly identify the perpetrators as Russian forces. If these very reputable sources are, somehow, refuted, we can then make those changes. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post has a new article, titled "In Bucha, the scope of Russian barbarity is coming into focus". It has considerable detail, of which some should probably be incorporated into the article. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how allegations and testimony have been approached in this article since I haven't edited it before. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Ganesha811, I can have a look at that. Still lost happenning with this topic, as new evidence comes to light daily. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some IPs as well as some new accounts exclusively editing this page are dedicated to denying the massacre, and/or disputing "Western" sources. Such comments should be removed on sight. Wikipedia is

I would call for a more vigilant observation by the administrators. This article is clearly a targeted by the Russian information warfare; Roskomnadzor ban of the Russian Wikipedia articles on this subject illustrates that rather well. Mindaur (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is an issue here and have requested that this talk page be semi-protected as a result because, with the greatest of respect, Wikipedia editors have not been able to clear up the mess on this talk page effectively. The article itself does not seem to be suffering, though. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors have not been able to clear up the mess on this talk page effectively. doesn't seem like anyone even tried. I just archived half of the sections on this talk, including many of the problematic sections referred to here. Don't support semiprot until options for removing the nonsense have actually been tried. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link right at the moment but this article and a few related ones are being discussed (with demands for "removal") on Russian state TV as well as by Russian government officials. Volunteer Marek 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what the OP is talking about, however. Based on what I have seen on other pages about this war, some of those IPs and users are close to the facts on the ground and should be listened to, even though they may not be familiar with Wikipedia procedure. And then of course there are the others, I agree. Administrator attention would be helpful, here and on ALL Ukrainian war pages, may I add.Elinruby (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False balance

There seems to be repeated attempts to present Russia's false claim about this massacre either being "staged" by Ukrainians, or (contradictorily but they don't care) even that Ukrainains committed these massacres, in the lede. We're not doing that. We went through that with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 back in 2014, we went with that with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and with similar topics. You want to describe these claims in detail start Russian conspiracy theories about the Bucha massacre article. At the very least we need to note that these claims have been debunked. Otherwise we're violating NPOV. Volunteer Marek 13:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As vehemently as I have disagreed with Volunteer Marek elsewhere, I agree with the above. We don’t have to amplify Russian disinformation and we shouldn’t. CNN, a reliable source with people on the ground, has footage taken by its own people. They have satellite footage taken March 18 showing the same bodies in the same places. On March 18, Russians were in full control of Bucha. If we stretch credulity to imagine that these people were somehow killed by somebody else while the Russians controlled the city, they still failed to protect these civilians and were unconcerned enough about 300 civilian deaths on their watch to even pick up the bodies. NPOV, I say reluctantly, possibly means we should not say in wikivoice that the Russians did the shooting. There are plenty of people to quote. There is no question in my mind that this was a war crime, an atrocity crime, and a massacre. Or that the Russians did it, but my opinion is not the point. What Zelensky, Biden and Blinken have to say about it is plenty and definitely notable. “Allegedly” is to be avoided anyway, so let’s just write the lede to say these bodies were found as the Russians retreated. The satellite imagery is very important and should be mentioned high up. The Russian denial is for domestic consumption and with all the independent reliable sources saying otherwise, NPOV does not require us to both-sides it. It should get a brief mention in the lede, then be segregated into its own section for the details. Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling evidenced (however poorly) claims from a government a conspiracy theory is interpretable as being in violation of NPOV. A bit charged as a point, but generally agreeable. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the theory proposed by Russia that Ukraine planted "fake" bodies (whatever they are) in Bucha after they left is pure fringe, as such it doesn't need to be given a space in the article as a normal mainstream view would, under NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was on CNN earlier and is probably on other outlets by now. No link, saw this on um... John Anderson’s show. Just an informational update; if CNN says they have geolocated the video I believe them but I am not currently in wikipedia research mode. Just the messenger Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NYT; [6] Elinruby (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the video too. I think it was CNN.

!!! It just came back on while I was typing-- Yes it's CNN. It's two corroborating videos. The first shows the cyclist being fired on by a tank (seen from a drone). GPS included.

The second is a GPS confirmed video on the ground (on Youtube) (thereby matching the two videos). Showing the dead bicyclist.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) you saw the New York Times video also right? Elinruby (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll take a look at that. I just got a subscrition to the NYT.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it. That is the most carefully documented one.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, there are two videos, one edited and shorter, one longer. This one, shows the cyclist more clearly get killed. The dead body of the cyclist is then geolocated to the same spot. So yes, this is video footage of one of the atrocities as it happenned - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10687627/Drone-video-shows-Russian-tank-opening-fire-cyclist-Bucha.html#v-9012576350283477635 Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. It says "Full video" and it certainly has more than the other one.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we have anything better than the Daily Fail? Surely they're not the original source of either video... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

better source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/06/watch-russian-tank-opens-fire-cyclist-bucha-bodies-later-discovered/ Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the person on the bicycle was a mother. CNN has an in-depth article about the woman and her daughters (and details about her killing).

It's available Here.

Her daughters called her "Mama Ira".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph is paywalled FYI. I consider it a fine source but would prefer to see us use something more accessible. Unless they have made this video freely available? Elinruby (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"These denials were refuted by a number of groups and media organisations", says the header. Does this really mean "refuted", or should it be "rebutted"? Either way is OK with me, but a lot of people use the first to mean the second. Paul Magnussen (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I think rebut would be more appropriate in keeping with npov, but I would be okay with keeping "refute" because the Russian denials are so laughably over the top. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can simply write "These denials are false", referring to reliable sources. Preferable, we support this with a reliable source that reports on the research of the various groups and media, in order to avoid original research. Technically, in order to write that the denials have been rebutted or refuted, we would need to specifically use third party reliable sources reporting on the research, in order to prove notability. (Such sources are already present in the article, but they are mixed with sources that engage in original research.) Some research groups, such as Bellingcat, make a business out of providing research, and are dependent on being cited primarily in Western countries, which might infringe on their objectivity. I would thus prefer to add sources such as Bellingcat only if there is a third party source reporting on their findings (which is the case for at least some of their research on the atrocities that have taken place in Bucha).   Cs32en Talk to me  03:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of satellite imaging of the massacre zone proves that Russia lied about there being no bodies on the ground prior to their evacuating Bucha.

The recordings of intercepted Russian radio talk between the Bucha killers-- as they discussed the killings and the torture also goes well beyond "refuted" or "rebutted".

The Ukrainian claims are proven. "Refuted" or "rebutted" no longer apply.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look up what the word "refute" means. As for the radio intercepts, they have not yet been verified as being directly connected to the bodies in Bucha. The satellite analyses also show numerous bodies beside impact craters from shelling, which would contradict the narrative that the bodies are all the result of deliberate killings. I agree with you in spirit, but let's not be hasty and let's stick to reporting what reliable sources have said. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested to know that the Pentagon released a statement saying that it is unable to verify the atrocities in Bucha after Biden made a statement calling Putin a war criminal: https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-cant-independently-confirm-atrocities-ukraines-bucha-official-says-2022-04-04/ Hardly a ringing endorsement or a statement you would expect them to make if everything had been "proven" as neatly as you imagine Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to engage in

reliable source that says, in that generality, that "the Ukrainian claims" have been proven.   Cs32en Talk to me  15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers, c. April 2022 - 01.jpg

  Cs32en Talk to me  16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment violates WP:AGF. I agree that the source goes back to a Twitter post that references a Ukrainian minister, none of which I can trace to a reliable source. However, it is absurd to accuse this photo of trying to create "emotional effect." The article is littered with images of dead individuals. I have to try and not cry at the entire thing. The decision should be based on whether or not a reliable source can be found to confirm the image. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the decision should be based on whether a reliable source can be found that says that the images shows an atrocity in Bucha. I have reworded my initial statement to clarify that the potential problem is related to the image, not the the intent of the person who posted it.   Cs32en Talk to me  21:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that the photo is somehow innapropriate because it "elicits an emotional response" - the context it is used in is for an article about the massacre of people in Bucha. Obviously photos of people who were massacred in Bucha is clearly relevant and suitable for an article about the same. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any photo that is representative of the atrocities will elicit an emotional response. My objection to using that particular image is that we don't have a reliable source that states that what is shown in the image is actually an atrocity that has taken place in Bucha, and that the main effect of the image is to elicit an emotional response, rather that to convey information about the subject of the article.   Cs32en Talk to me  03:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MY point was more about the emotional response argument by itself - yes completely agree, if there is no actual proof the picture is from Bucha, then it should be removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed the image while this conversation is still going on. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you propose to delete the article, your comment about "emotions" is wholly irrelevant. Every single image in this article will elicit the exact same response. Calling out this single image makes no sense. I agree with removing it until a proper source can be found. Zkidwiki (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. This article does not make it clear that media access to the town was virtually inaccessible during the occupation. Journalists were only able to access the town on April 4.^[1]
2. The Russian government says that the Russians withdrew on March 30, and that if a massacre happened then reports of it would have emerged immediately after. But as Atlantic Council member Givi Gigitashvili points out, Russian state media outlet Zvezda had already said that Russian troops were still present by April 1. After that Ukrainian authorities had to clear the town of bombs/mines/other similar substances first thing first. And as mentioned above, journalists were unable to enter Bucha until April 4.^[2]
3. According to Reuters, once they had occupied the town, Russian forces ordered all civilians' phones to be confiscated and handed over.^[3]
4. South African journalist and CBS News correspondent Debora Patta personally visited Bucha and concluded the massacre happened.^[4]
5. Even after the massacre, Bucha doesn't have any water/electricity/gas supplies. ^[5]
6. The
   Canadian House of Commons held a moment of silence in reaction to the massacre.^[6]
7. Patrick Desbois is investigating the massacre. Given his past experience with massacres it might be wise to give him a look.^[7]

Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the CBS article^[4] refers to the events as "atrocities", not as a massacre.   Cs32en Talk to me  18:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is unrelated, please stay close to the topic. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to the article as support for your opinion that "the massacre" happened. That atrocities happened is not in dispute, so the term "massacre" is only reason why that article appears in your list. But the article itself uses the term "atrocities".   Cs32en Talk to me  18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the CBS link here, then those are two different links you are referring to. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about the article linked in paragraph (4) of your list, which I have also referenced in my reply.   Cs32en Talk to me  19:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An original version of the article likely said "massacre," as referenced by the URL slug. Regardless, a massacre is an "atrocity," both by common sense and the very definition of "massacre": "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." This hair splitting does not affect the points made by Dunutubble. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an earlier version of the article indeed said "massacre", then this would indicate that the source likely made a conscious decision to change that wording to "atrocities". While every massacre is an atrocity, not every atrocity is a massacre - thus these two terms have obviously different meanings.   Cs32en Talk to me  21:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the URL tells us - the URL is six key terms chosen for SEO purposes, and the fact that "Bucha massacre" are the first two key terms strongly implies that whoever is responsible for SEO at CBS decided that that phrase is the most important thing to reference when posting any stories about the subject. It actually supports the use of "Bucha massacre" as a set phrase.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A massacre is when a number of people are killed under atrocity. The source says a number of people were killed under atrocity. Ergo, the source reflects a massacre. Zkidwiki (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/221271.html Victor Grigas (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, hope these images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! Victor Grigas (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ritter, the fomer UN weapons inspector, has become quite the star for pro-Russia media and commenters for his recent inputs over the Bucha massacre. He made quite some wild claims (seemingly without proper evidences) on Russian media like RT and TASS, but 1 particular claim of his "The people of Bucha give them eggs, milk, cheese, and the Russians use dry food, flour, salt, sugar and meat. Exchange. Then the Russians went away, and all those who were involved in this interaction with the Russians after that are now considered collaborators by the Ukrainian side” can only be found on this apparently unreliable website, neither from his online interview by RT, TASS, Sputnik, nor his Twitter account (to make things even more complicated his account was recently temporarily suspended and expectedly some of his tweets were likely deleted by Twitter). Problem is, this particular claim is quoted by Chinese media while showing the video of his RT interview (again in the video he mentioned nothing remotely related to food). I wonder if someone fluent in Russian can help pinpoint the exact source of this claim by searching in Russian language. This matters because in the Chinese Wikipedia version of Bucha massacre, an apparently Russia-apologist included this claim citing a Chinese news agency. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameboat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdM5Pkyl0_8&t=3673s&ab_channel=UNAC Renat 14:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritter is speaking as a private individual with no access to privileged information. His voice shouldn't be given any value over any other former intelligence officer. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think anything he says would get a pass on the Engish version of any article of this invasion, but that's Chinese Wikipedia for you. It would be nice if Western mainstream media begin to debunk his claims, but they don't seem to be interested in giving his claims oxygen, exactly because he can't provide any concrete evidence to back his claims. We are trying our best to cite fact-checking sources to counter Russia's denial as much as we can. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should allegations of genocide be included in the lead? I personally think it's a little undue at this stage, hence my removal of the claims. However, I understand others may disagree and am happy to be overruled if editors disagree with the removal. - - QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's undue. I don't think anyone except Ukrainian officials have been officially alleging genocide so far. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the mass killing because as the article says the term does not always imply genocide. Sjö (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting from user Sjö's talk page:

The wiki article on "mass killings" indicates that 1) it is a term used when compiling a list of genocidal events 2) the most common accepted definition for the term is the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants where a "massive number" is at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less.

Not every massacre is a mass killing. This is abundantly clear if you scroll down the mass killing wiki page and look at the table there to see what kind of events have qualified as "mass killings" in the past Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Not every statement by officials from anywhere needs to be reported, even less so if it's only coming from those from one country. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]