Jump to content

Talk:Bucha massacre/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reliable Sources and "Reliable Sources"

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Traditionally, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.

However, this criterion may be less appropriate now than it was when it was formulated, twenty years ago. Back then, "well-established news outlets" had staffs of capable investigative journalists who checked stories. The move to web-based news has deprived these outlets of both circulation revenue and advertising revenue; without revenue, they have been forced to get rid of most of their best investigative journalists. Consequently, reporting from well-established news outlets is less reliable than it once was; the flimsiest "confirmation", often amounting to little more than repeated assertion, is accepted as "fact-checking".

Under Wikipedia's current policy, this article may well be appropriate as it stands. Furthermore, I have no suggestion for how the policy could be changed. However, I do think that the "reliable source" criterion is being misapplied. Having read the article, and considered the sources, I am not entirely convinced that what is presented as "fact" is true. I'm left with the feeling that a large number of people have strong beliefs that it is true - which is not always the same thing. I think the article could be improved by some indication that the objectivity of most of the sources is questionable, and that most of what is cited as "fact checking" is far from rigorous. Longitude2 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you point to specific sections of the article? I've been trying to remove statements that are too strong and not backed up by evidence, as well as trying to maintain NPOV which is admittedly difficult, given my own bias against the Russian government. But I have noticed some editors swallowing the Ukrainian narrative whole without any critical reflection on the claims being made and have been pushing back where appropriate. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Longitude2, this specific talk page is not the appropriate place for you to ramble on about your perception that widely accepted reliable sources are no longer reliable because of your own personal doubts. According to WP:NOTAFORUM, you are supposed to identify specific problems with the article content and propose specific improvements, including references to reliable sources. Generalized grousing is unproductive and is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Some points from me:
1. What I see as the "better" sources quoted in this article (e.g. Reuters, AP, BBC), and even some of which I'd personally consider "worse" of the generally reliable ones (e.g. CNN, Fox News) do actually have journalists on the ground in Ukraine, and are reporting basically first-hand what they see, and second-hand testimonies of the residents, etc. So there is definitely a solid degree of investigative journalism to support the core of the article, and even a lot of the details.
2. That being said, I do also sense a tendency from some editors to write what they believe more than what the sources actually say. I think this article could prove to be a great case of whether WP actually honors its own policies. As a general rule, I would lean towards restricting the usage of wikivoice for historical/scientific/encyclopedic/undisputed facts, and rely on phrasing like "It was reported that..."/"Source X claimed that..." for news reporting and any kind of situation that could change rapidly.
3. Cullen is correct that as per WP:NOTAFORUM we should avoid general discussion and stick to specific suggestions. ObsidianPotato (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth I can't see how any kind of finished and fully varified version can exist at this time. Untill the ICC have done their investigation there will always be angry and outraged opinion Vs fact based Vs deniers or/and disrupters. All can also come from individuals and state sponsored sources. HuttonIT (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Could use a free version of Bucha map

Suggestion for anyone who's good at making maps - we could use a user generated free version of map found here. Volunteer Marek 19:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Organization of the article

I think that as more info has come out our current organization of the article no longer makes sense. Currently it is:

  • 2.1 During the Russian offensive
  • 2.2 After the Russian withdrawal
  • 2.3 Testimony from residents

With the "testimony from residents" containing most of the info on the killings. Rather I think something like this would be better:

  • 2.1 During the Russian offensive
  • 2.2 Under Russian occupation
  • 2.3 After the withdrawal

Or perhaps something like it. Right now the organization kind of skips the actual important part. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know why "testimonies from residents" is given a separate section given that most of the reports, including those listed under 2.1 and 2.2 are based primarily on witness testimony. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Switching between allegations and confirmation

Almost every time I look at the article lead, it either switches between 'the alleged mistreatment/killing/abuse of civilians' to 'the [confirmed] mistreatment/killing/abuse of civilians.' Considering that this is a major event with much coverage, it should be decided whether it's simply an allegation or a confirmed killing. Paradox NiteOwl (Discussion?) 15:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There were multiple discussions on this, see e.g.
and the general consensus was that "confirmed" as well as "by Russian troops" is the preferred phrasing. ObsidianPotato (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Map

Hi. Please can someone with more technical skills in this area enable the map in the infobox to have the three radio buttons to zoom in/out on it's location in Ukraine, similar to the infobox at Bucha, Kyiv Oblast? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

What dates was the Maxar Satellite over Bucha?

Considering this is openly available data on the Maxar website and Oliver Stone among other personalities have been openly discussing this alleged hole in the New York Times story, it might be good to go straight to the primary source (Maxar website) and present it here? Any thoughts? Would the Maxar website be considered a primary or a secondary source in this case? 2.138.180.34 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What hole, sorry? Could you share some sources? BeŻet (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Human rights watch

The HRW released a report yesterday about Bucha. Some extracts that may be worth adding to this article are:

1) "Human Rights Watch documented the details of 16 apparently unlawful killings in Bucha, including nine summary executions and seven indiscriminate killings of civilians – 15 men and a woman. [...] The cases documented represent a fraction of Russian forces’ apparent war crimes in Bucha during their occupation of the town."
2) "Soon after they occupied the city, Russian forces went door to door, searching residential buildings, claiming they were 'hunting Nazis'. In multiple locations they looked for weapons, interrogated residents, and sometimes detained the men, allegedly for failure to comply with orders, or without providing a specific reason. Family members of those detained said they were not told where their male relatives were taken, and were unable to get information later about where they were being held. This amounts to an enforced disappearance, a crime under international law in all circumstances. The bodies of some of those forcibly disappeared, including in two of the cases Human Rights Watch documented, were found on streets, in yards, or in basements after the Russian forces retreated – some with signs that they had been tortured."

There are far more details in the report, for those with the stomach to read them. Nicodene (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added a mention of this report at the end of the After the Russian withdrawal section - feel free to edit/suggest improvements. ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Attribution of a quote in the Guardian article

Volunteer Marek, you reverted [1] my correction [2] of the attribution of a quote in the Guardian [3], giving the edit summary "source says “witnesses”". Currently our article says, The Guardian cited eyewitness accounts who said that the Russian forces placed Ukrainian children on their vehicles while moving in order to use them as human shields. This is not correct, because the source says: Colonel Oleksandr Motuzyanyk, spokesman for Ukraine’s ministry of defence, said "Enemies have been using Ukrainian children as a living shield when moving their convoys, moving their vehicles. Russian soldiers have used Ukrainian children as hostages, putting them on their trucks" [4]. The Guardian does not cite eyewitnesses about the placing of children on Russian military vehicles as human shields. Please self revert. Xenagoras (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

as the first horrifying witness accounts from the newly liberated town of Bucha, near Kyiv, emerge. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This Guardian report is about different events in several cities. The Guardian does not cite any witness but only Ukrainian government officials, which are compiling witness accounts. The quote we use is paraphrased to what Colonel Oleksandr Motuzyanyk said, but he is not a witness. Perhaps we could use a summarizing quotation from the Guardian like Russia has been accused by Ukraine of using children as “human shields” while regrouping its forces or Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims about the Russian use of local children to avoid fire when in retreat from around Ukraine’s capital and elsewhere. Xenagoras (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
[5]. Volunteer Marek 05:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you propose to use BBC [6] instead of the guardian? Xenagoras (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I replaced the Guardian source with the BBC. Xenagoras (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
No, you don't do that again. Both the Grauniad and the BBC are reliable, and no valid reason exists to prefer the account of one and ignore that from the other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." - a note that BBC does not have. ObsidianPotato (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Objectivity

At the very beginning the article states "Photographic and video evidence of the massacre emerged on 1 April 2022 after Russian forces withdrew from the city." but the two references are dated April 6 and 5. The second reference specifically states that the bodies were found on April 3. So the claim about photographic evidence on April 1 is not supported.

This is a critical issue, because there is a page on an Ukranian website dated April 2 with title "Special Forces Regiment SAFARI Begins Clearing Operation in Bucha from Saboteurs and Accomplices of Russia", which makes it at least possible that these civilians were deemed to be accomplices of Russia and were killed by the Ukranian SAFARI regiment after the Russians had left the city on March 31.

As for the satellite photos supposedly from 15 or more days earlier showing dead bodies there are questions about the reliability of the source. There is the matter with the smiling mayor on the official page of Bucha's city council on April 1 when supposedly so many executed civilians had been lying for many days on the streets of his small town. What I personally find perplexing is this: During these 15 or more days wouldn't somebody have used a mobile phone to take a picture and uploaded it or send it to some news organization before April 3 when the Ukrainian SAFARI regiment was already in town? Finally I read that Russia has immediately tried to involve the UN, whereas the Ukrainian government which controls the area has not invited the UN to investigate.

I know that the media in the West as well as many high ranking officials in the US and the EU have stated publicly that the massacre was committed by the Russians. But back in 2003 they were quite certain about WMD in Iraq too. And at least according to the well known French newspapers Le Figaro and Le Monde there are suspicions that the massacre in Kosovo's Racak which played a role in justifying NATO's involvement was staged.

In conclusion I think it's simply too early to state for a fact who committed the massacre in Bucha. I suggest that in order to protect Wikipedia's objectivity the first sentence should be changed to "The Bucha massacre was the killing and abuse of Ukrainian civilians allegedly by Russian Armed Forces", and similar qualifications should be made elsewhere. And the second sentence should read "Photographic and video evidence of the massacre emerged on April 3, 2022 after Russian forces had withdrawn and Ukrainian forces had entered the city." Dianelos (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest citing a reliable source rather than copy-pasting talking-points from RT. Nicodene (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"(...) possible that these civilians were deemed to be accomplices of Russia and were killed by the Ukranian SAFARI" I would appreciate if you refrain from making any synthesized conclusion from sources unless such conclusion is directly reported by reliable sources. Even in talk page like this, continuously promoting your unsourced claims will be considered violation of our WP:NOTFORUM policy, so please stop. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It was been well documented that Russian forces have been confiscating mobile phones from occupied areas, in addition to the issues with network sabotage and outages and the lack of freedom of movement for civilians, so a lack of prior phone footage is hardly a mystery. So that's one point. On the point about UN investigations, Kyiv called on the body to investigate war crimes on 28 February. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The claim about photographic evidence on April 1 is supported by Bellingcat [7] which is a reliable source quoted in-line. ObsidianPotato (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The residents of Bucha state very clearly that Russian Armed Forces were responsible for both the coordinated killing, with printed kill lists, and the random killing. Boud (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, see Wikipedia:NOTFORUM, which states "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". It is not relevant to discuss a person's observations and conclusions on article talk pages. Nythar (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

New research from Guardian on the topic

Today, Guardian has posted an article researching on events in Bucha. According to it, people were killed not by gun bullets, but by dart-spraying ammo, which contradicts previous claims, as well as some other parts of research are also there.

I think it should be included into the page contents

Article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/24/dozens-bucha-civilians-killed-flechettes-metal-darts-russian-artillery SwampKryakwa (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, need to mention that there was a report from Ren TV back from 2019, mentioning that such weapon was used by Ukraine. I don't know if this can be put into the page and if it counts as original research, but this is for sure important to the topic https://nimblechef.ru.net/v/186243 SwampKryakwa (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, we have about 400 dead from several weeks of fighting. While media strives to give the impression this is all war crimes, most likely it is a mix of dead soldiers, civilians caught by artillery shelling or otherwise in the crossfire (e.g sat images date a large number of roadside dead to when the town was in Ukraine possession), and straight-out murders. The number of cases in the different categories is anybody's guess, since the media only gives anecdotes. Ketil (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM SwampKryakwa (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
A Russian account created specifically for Bucha denialism. Interesting.
What previous claims, exactly, are "contradicted" by this report? It does not say that all victims in Bucha died from flechettes. Nicodene (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have created this account half a year ago, long before events in Bucha. SwampKryakwa (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Apparently so, but the only thing you've ever done on Wiki is pursue Bucha denialism. Nicodene (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not deny killings in Bucha, but consider that claims are done too early, and try to protect my point of view on things.
By the way, discussing personal actions on beliefs isn't appropriate for talk pages, if you want to discuss me, there is a user talk page SwampKryakwa (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say you deny the killings. What you deny is Russian responsibility, which is apparently your singular focus on Wikipedia, judging by all your edits. Nicodene (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Protecting your point of view over that of reliable sources isn’t appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Misinterpreting the Guardian article, as you have done above, may be an example. —Michael Z. 13:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The thing with article is, which was pointed out in previous talks, is that it is extremely biased against Russia. What we really had before this article is random unsupported with anything solid claims (and even this don't really say anything factually on the real responsibility, only on method of killing, probably not only, but only one with factual backing behind it). I have seen the NPOV many times, but refusing Russian side view on things has only driven article further from neutral SwampKryakwa (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Have you actually read through WP:NPOV? Note in particular:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
And:
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
And:
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.
On Wikipedia, only reliable sources count for anything. Among them, the idea that Russia is innocent with regards to Bucha is a fringe theory. Without reliable sources that explicitly support this view, you have no justification for pushing it on Wikipedia. Nicodene (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian source does not say “not by gun bullets”: in fact it explicitly says people were killed by being shot in the back of the head with hands tied. It does not say how many were killed by flechettes, and does not contradict previous statements. It says the weapon was Russian, and used during the Russian occupation.
Investigations are in progress. Evidence being reported is just that, and not “anybody’s guess.”
So yes, add this. But please ignore some comments trying to cast doubt on evidence of Russian war crimes. —Michael Z. 04:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The report does not contradict previous information, but could be added. The use of flechettes, a type of anti-personnel weaponry, fired from Russian artillery into densely built up civilian areas, is also a violation of humanitarian law, and consistent with the broader pattern of war crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A few points I would add to this debate:
* "Bucha denialism" is not a thing. Accusing editors of being denialists or Russian bots over what is still a very confusing topic is not on. Assume Good Faith and do not try to censor honest debate.
* There are no Fringe theories on current events. The policy does not apply.
* As time passes, it is becoming increasingly clear that initial claims of mass genocide have been vastly exaggerated. The UN can only verify 50 dead civilians and the Guardian says most were killed by "Russian" artillery fire. This begs the question of how Russians could shell civilians in territory they hold themselves. Not a question to include in the article, but as a warning to exercise caution on this topic. Particularly considering there is evidence of these flechettes having been used by the Ukrainian army in the Donbass in 2016. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what WP:SIRS claims of mass genocide you are talking about - from my experience with reliable sources, the evidence has only been more and more damning for the Russian side, which is reflected in the sources. At the beginning, journalists would exercise caution by talking of "alleged crimes", "apparent evidence", or "Ukrainian authorities blaming Russians" (for a while, I was a proponent of similar language in the article) - but now we are seeing more and more explicit descriptions of Russian crimes (based on more and more witness testimony, satellite imagery, pictures, and videos). But again, this discussion doesn't really belong here, and 80% of what I'm saying right now, and 80% of what you've said is original research.
I agree with your sentiment about ad personam and censorship. But I also see how it can get really annoying to explain policies such as WP:V or WP:RS over and over again to what often looks like bad faith actors. ObsidianPotato (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Bucha denialism is very much a thing, I did not call anyone a 'bot', I did not try to 'censor' anyone, and Wikipedia is not the place for 'debates' between users on world events.
  • When a user has done nothing on Wikipedia but pursue Bucha denialism (against the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources), when they misrepresent a source to argue for that agenda, and when they openly admit to being here to "protect my point of view", I don't see how good faith can be assumed.
  • I see no mention of any supposed exception for current events on WP:FRINGE.
  • As mentioned in the discussion, Wikipedia is not the place for personal speculation without reliable sources. Nicodene (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Nicodene, "Bucha denialism" is not a thing. Nor is you linking to a section of this article you yourself have been editing heavily to reflect your personal POV evidence of it being a thing. WP:FRINGE is about theories which fall outside academic or scientific consensus. There is no such consensus on something which happened a month ago in an ongoing conflict on which we don't, as of yet, have real clear or reliable information. Therefore you are misusing a policy which does not apply. Ultimately, we have the war propaganda of media outlets from two sides in a New Cold War which complicates things a lot in terms of reliability, particularly in a project which only accepts Western sources as reliable. Not something I object to, but this is, after all, an East-West conflict.
In my view, only the conclusions from UN or other multilateral organizations which have investigated on the ground should be included in this article as factual or confirmed. Reliable sources such as the Guardian which have carried out research in situ as well, although with caution, at least during the duration of this conflict. I have noticed a huge increase of zealot edit-warriors on Wikipedia over the past months, leading to very bizarre outcomes. A time for Wikipedians to be extra vigilant over balance. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
ObsidianPotato, thanks for your answer. Just a couple of points. In my view, what I'm guilty of is more WP:SYNTH than WP:OR - I draw inferences from two separate reliable sources. As for WP:NOTAFORUM, I understand the sentiment of dealing with editors sharing their personal opinion here and that can be frustrating. However, we should be careful not to abuse this policy to shut down honest, good faith discussion on how policy applies to sourcing and balance in this article. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
> Nicodene, "Bucha denialism" is not a thing.
No less a figure than the foreign minister of Russia openly called it a "fake attack". So too did Vladimir Putin himself.
> Nor is you linking to a section of this article you yourself have been editing heavily to reflect your personal POV evidence of it being a thing.
Don't make up false accusations. I have never touched that section of the article whatsoever.
> WP:FRINGE is about theories which fall outside academic or scientific consensus. There is no such consensus on something which happened a month ago.
If you believe there is no consensus in reliable sources about Russian responsibility for Bucha, despite the numerous ones already cited in this article, then prove it. Cite reliable sources that say that Russia is not responsible for it. Nicodene (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but what are the chances that people working for Russia are going to make some edit attempts over here...
Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Chesapeake77 Trying to argue that people who disagree with your personal POV or that of your government "work for the enemy" is a little "orwellian" don't you think? Doing so also violates a number of wikipedia policies. I remind you that there may be censorship where you live, but Wikipedia is not censored. Nor are editors shut down based on baseless allegations of "working for Russia". I also remind you that there is no restriction on people working for any government - be it Ukraine, Russia or the United States from editing wikipedia, so long as their edits are in accordance with policy. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Nicodene, I think you did not understand what I meant by "Bucha denialism" not being "a thing". Yes there are different views and theories on what happened in Bucha. And no "Bucha denialism" as an ideological movement going against overwhelming established academic consensus and proof is not a thing. It is not akin to "holocaust denialism". Calling it that is simply a rhetorical technique to silence debate. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Cervantes 28014 That's just how I happened to phrase it- I could just as well have said 'Bucha denial'. It's not worth anyone's time to launch an all-out semantic war over three letters.
You've been asked to cite reliable sources and have yet to do so. Instead you are focused on winning 'debates', to the extent that you blatantly lied about my actions. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Nicodene (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Cervantes you accused me of saying things I never said. I said 1) "I am not talking about anyone in particular here" and 2) I said "...what are the chances that people working for Russia are going to make some edit attempts over here..." I never accused any individual.
Also you are wrong-- no one can edit Wikipedia who is being paid money to do it. So if someone is "working for Russia" to edit here that is against Wikipedia rules.
@SwampKryakwa -- You gave the wrong information about the "flechettes" article. It actually says that using flechettes in a city is a war crime. Maybe you did not read the whole article. (In referring to the 8,000 flechettes per Russian tank shell) the article says" "...the use of imprecise lethal weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of humanitarian law."
Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes you cannot be paid money to edit wikipedia. But that applies to anyone. Not specifically to "Russians". And people who work for the Russian government (school teachers, doctors, civil servants in the ministry of energy etc.) are not forbidden from editing wikipedia, regardless of their views. In fact, even people working for Russia Today are allowed to edit wikipedia if they so choose so long as they are not paid to do so. As for Bucha, I have made my position clear. The UN mission to Bucha counts 50 civilians killed in Bucha but has not as of yet attributed the deaths to either side of the conflict. Cervantes 28014 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I meant, and it should have been clear to you-- someone being paid by Russia and being directed to edit here. Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I will address the following claims made above by user Cervantes 28014:
'The UN can only verify 50 dead civilians and the Guardian says most were killed by "Russian" artillery fire.'
Here the user has falsely characterized 50 as a count of general civilian deaths, when the source clearly reports ~50 as the number of unlawful killings and summary executions.
Compare the following information from the report by Reuters already cited in this article (and not by me):
'Shapravskyi, the deputy mayor, said some 300 people were found dead after the Russian withdrawal. Of these, he said officials so far have logged 50 as executions carried out by Russian forces.'
It is clear that the figure of 50 refers specifically to extrajudicial killings/executions (N.B.: the number documented so far) rather than to incidental deaths from artillery fire, as user Cervantes 28014 claimed. Moreover, it is not an estimate of general civilian deaths.
Next, the same user said the following:
'This begs the question of how Russians could shell civilians in territory they hold themselves [...] Particularly considering there is evidence of these flechettes having been used by the Ukrainian army in the Donbass in 2016.'
The first sentence contains the false premise that the Russians held all of Bucha at the time that the shelling occurred. No evidence is cited to support this speculation.
The second sentence, first of all, indicates the wrong year (it wasn't 2016), and—more importantly—it relies on second-hand citation of a report from REN TV, a Russian media outlet well-known for its conspiracy theories and alternate history. (Note: I have never edited that page.) Furthermore, it refers to Donbas in 2019, not Bucha in 2022.
Meanwhile, the attribution of flechette rounds fired in Bucha to Russian forces is explicitly made in the report from The Guardian, cited at the very beginning of this thread, as well as an earlier report from the Washington Post (mentioned by The Guardian). Both are textbook reliable sources, needless to say.
In sum: 1) cite reliable sources that actually refer to the event in question, 2) accurately report what they say. Nicodene (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
FALSE QUOTE OF SOURCE: In the section "Death Count", on line 8, a false quote of the article by Reuters was placed (at some point in the past) that incorrectly claimed that the Deputy Mayor had "confirmed" that "only" 50 people had been executed. Neither of these words ("only" or "confirmed") appeared in the Reuters source, but were falsely added into this article (Bucha Wassacre).
This is a misrepresentation of the cited source.
Corrected.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This video must’ve been “staged” too, huh? Why do people even waste time with these obviously bad faithed accounts? Volunteer Marek 16:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/europe/russia-bucha-ukraine-executions.html (Non-paywall version: https://archive.ph/lqnTL) 220.255.241.198 (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Artillery fléchettes

@BobNesh: Your latest addition regarding the use of fléchettes by Ukraine has been disputed by two editors now. Moreover, unlike what you suggested in your edit summary, you're not using TASS to attribute a statement of the Russian government, but rather presenting the content as fact in the article, raising reliability issues. Considering this, I ask you to please self revert the edit. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The use of fléchettes by Ukraine in a war on Ukrainian soil is confirmed. Yahoo News is the source for that. It is entirely plausible that Ukrainian army shelled retreating Russian positions in Bucha. It is not at all plausible that the Russian troops in Bucha shelled themselves. Regarding the Guardian as a reliable source, when NATO murdered hundreds of Kosovo Albanian civilians back in 1999, including dozens of children (see: NATO bombing of Albanian refugees near Gjakova & Koriša bombing), they tried to justify these outrage NATO acts in their articles, one of which is cynically titled: "Bomb dropped 'in good faith'" https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/16/richardnortontaylor.julianborger
Until valid arguments are given, no reverts should be made. Best regards. BobNesh (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article from 2014 that cites rebels and the alleged Ukrainian use of fléchettes is not related and is based on allegations by the rebels themselves. Also, who is Drago Bosnic? There was way too much weight given to the self-described "independent analyst" that is not notable. Both entries were removed. Also, the statement in Tass was reworded.--WMrapids (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BobNesh: The question at hand is not whether has used flechettes is Dombass Donbass or not anytime since the conflict first started in 2014, but rather if they used them in Bucha (which is in the Kyiv Oblast, mind you), and if by extension they're responsible of the massacre. Using a Yahoo! source to support a different statement is an instance of WP:SYNTH, and as such, original research.
Regarding The Guardian's reliability, it's effectively whataboutism, and if you have any issues about it you're free to open a discussion in the Reliable sources noticeboard. Still, its reliability has already been discussed by the community at least 15 and there's a solid consensus that it is a reliable reference (see WP:RS/P for details). On the other hand, "Infobrics.org" has an Alexa rating of 443494, paling in comparison to The Guardian's 150. It is an obscure website that definetely should not be used for stating facts. While I'm at it, this also leads to another issue with the change: you added that the eyewitnesses were "Unnamed", which appears to be a personal opinion and is directly contradicted by the article, which as an example names Svitlana Chmut, a resident of Bucha.
Since you have proposed the change, the onus is on you both for the change to meet Wikipedia's policies or to have a consensus of it. On the contrary, the version previous to the edit has to be restored. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Dombass??? Really??? The name of the region is Donbas! Obviously you don't know much about the subject. And the subject is war in Ukraine. Reverts were made without any valid argument. Best regards. BobNesh (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Read my revert comment. Also, please stop edit warring when you are reverted per WP:BRD; you are the one who needs to establish consensus for a new edit. Wretchskull (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Edit isn't new. It just doesn't follow the agenda being pushed, agenda that violates neutral point of view. And the edit was reverted using "nice try" "argument". BobNesh (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Your trying to pass off "infobrics" as a reliable source, while simultaneously casting the Guardian and German intelligence reports as unreliable, as well as the fact that you tried to label the entire article as "atrocity propaganda", as well as your extensive history of edit-warring, disruptive editing, and problems with WP:RS and WP:NPOV, all show an unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Nicodene (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Spanish spelling dictates that ms are used before bs. Most of my concerns remain unanswered, regardless. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Social media comments

Why is this subsection needed in this article? It does not reflect the mood of Russian society. It does not reflect the general mood of Russian users of many social networks. He takes only a couple of groups in an anonymous social network, which include a small number of freaks and trolls, but does not represent the position of the rest of Russian society, against which these three groups are just a grain of sand. What are 144 extremist comments out of 288 comments reviewed in 48 hours, when the number of Russian users of one of the most popular social networks in Rrussia "Vkontakte" reaches 50 million people every day ( https://vk.com/main.php?subdir=press&subsubdir=users-monthly-activity )? What is the point in the same subsection of the comment "popular" Yulia Vityazeva regarding the battle for Mariupol, when Bucha is generally on a different sector of the front and Ukraine? And in the end, why are there stories about T-shirts with such inscriptions, when criminal responsibility ( p. 280.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/4618fd95c30a6fbe7717ceaebf64f082e735c9ad/ ) is provided for one wearing of such a T-shirt in the Russian Federation? The authors give the impression that people in Russia can safely wear such T-shirts. Although for the wearer of such a T-shirt, everything will end sadly when meeting with the first police patrol. And only one goal is pursued: under the loud heading "Social media comments", which assumes a broad study of public opinion, to present an analysis of three small groups with freaks for the opinion of the entire Russian society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flankercold (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, Yulia Vityazeva is an infamously known tv personality directly sposored by Russian propaganda. On the rest - the subsection may be rewritter in the future with better sources. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
That's when such studies appear, then it will be possible to talk about the feasibility of including such a section with such a name in the future. Now he is simply a lonely, not the most qualitative and not the most objective study. If you already need to leave it like that, then rename this section to "Comments of Nazi trolls and freaks from Telegram". Not "Social media comments". The popularity of Yulia Vityazeva cannot be assessed objectively, there is not even an article about her on the Russian Wikipedia. It's not even about this popularity. What is her comment about anyway? Bucha is located 660 kilometers from Mariupol. This is a completely different theater of military operations. Why is her comment in this article? Flankercold (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Flankercold: I suggest you open an WP:RFC proposing a deletion of the subsection to solve this problem. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Map of victims

I suggest we add a map of victims, just like portugese wiki did. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a system for knowing which sources are credible or not usable on this article?

I'm surprised by the weight given to some of the sources, and also by how they are used. Is there a general guide for what can be used or should not be used, for example managing conflicts of interest? Louis Waweru  Talk  01:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you check some of the rules with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add the commander of the Russian National Guard Sergei Kolotsei

Ukrainian law enforcement officers have identified the first suspect in the brutal killings of civilians in the city of Bucha near Kyiv: the commander of the Russian National Guard Sergei Kolotsei. This was announced by Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova on Facebook. «Bucha prosecutors and police have established that it was this serviceman who killed four unarmed men in Bucha on March 18,» she wrote. «He took a pro-Ukrainian local resident to the basement, where he beat him with his hands, a machine gun butt and a knife guard. The man was taken to the place of execution, where he was shot near his ear while imitating the massacre. A separate perverted form of bullying and intimidation of the victim was forcing him to sniff a dead person,” the prosecutor general said. Based on the collected evidence, testimony of the victim and portrait examination, prosecutors of the Bucha District Prosecutor’s Office informed the Rosguard Coloce on suspicion of ill-treatment of civilians and other violations of laws and customs of war combined with premeditated murder (Part 1, 2 of Ukraine). https://hromadske.radio/en/news/2022/05/03/killed-tortured-stole-the-hood-of-a-car-ukraine-announces-the-names-of-suspects-involved-in-the-crimes-in-bucha

Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Iryna Venediktova has announced the name of the first Russian soldier suspected of killing civilians in the town of Bucha near Kyiv during weeks of occupation. Venediktova said on May 2 that that the suspect was the commander of a unit of Russia's National Guard, Sergei Kolotsei. "Prosecutors of Bucha have established that this very military serviceman killed four unarmed men in Bucha on March 18," Venediktova wrote on Facebook, including the suspect's photo in the post. "He also tortured another civilian on March 29, forcing him to confess to saboteur activities against Russian troops." According to Venediktova, Kolotsei forced a pro-Ukrainian civilian into a basement, where he beat him with his fists, an assault rifle, and a knife handle. “The man was then taken to an execution site, where he went through mock execution as a gun was shot near his ear," she said. "Especially horrible type of humiliation and intimidation of the victim was forcing him to sniff a dead human body." Kolotsei has been officially informed that he is a suspect, Venediktova said. However, her Facebook post did not say that formal charges had been filed.

https://www.facebook.com/VenediktovaIryna/posts/380157467455261

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-prosecutor-bucha-russian-suspect/31830968.html

командир підрозділу Нацгвардії Росії Сергій Колоцей. «Прокурори Бучі та поліцейські встановили, що саме цей військовослужбовець вбив 18 березня чотирьох беззбройних чоловіків у Бучі. 29 березня він же катував, примушуючи зізнатися у підривній діяльності проти російської армії ще одного цивільного. Він забрав проукраїнськи налаштованого місцевого мешканця «на підвал», де бив його руками, прикладом автомата і гардою ножа. Чоловіка вивозили на місце страти, де, імітуючи розправу, стріляли біля його вуха. Окремим збоченим видом знущання і залякування потерпілого було примушування його нюхати мертву людину», – написала Венедіктова у фейсбуці. 31.173.82.91 (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Improper support for assertion of approx 1,300 civilians killed

Neither reference provided properly supports, if even at all, the assertion of approximately 1,300 civilians killed KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither reference supports the assertion that approximately 1,300 civilians were killed. "Verification failed" has been inserted (for the time being). KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources you refer to says:
Since the withdrawal of Russian troops from the region at the end of March, authorities say they have uncovered the bodies of 1,316 people, many in mass graves in the forest and elsewhere.[8]
Here’s another that clarifies:
After months of meticulous, painful and at times gruesome investigation, officials in Bucha said Monday that they had reached what may be the closest they will get to a final accounting of victims of the murderous rampage by Russian troops that set off worldwide outrage over alleged atrocities: 458 bodies, of which 419 bore markings they had been shot, tortured or bludgeoned to death.
Bucha, however, experienced by far some of the worst of the violence among the dozens of towns and settlements briefly occupied by Russian troops in the Kyiv region, accounting for a third of the estimated total of 1,300 victims.[9]
 —Michael Z. 23:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Reference #2, the BBC article "Ukraine: The children's camp that became an execution ground" does not support the claim. I will restore the verification failed notice for that reference. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to remove the reference to "Ukraine: The children's camp that became an execution ground" which does not support the 1,300 figure. I have restored the verification failed notice for that reference KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
It clearly supports over 1000 and that a massacre of that scale occurred. Sources will vary and change over time, and claiming that the source fails verification is an overstatement of the matter. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"It clearly supports over 1000". Yes, but that doesn't support 1,300. That's a problem with that reference. Feel free to find another.
Secondly, we still have the problem of improperly assigning the number of deaths to Bucha vs to the region of Kyiv KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
So, essentially, for the third time, the references do not support the claim of 1,300 in Bucha, or even in the region of Bucha KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Sources will vary and change over time" ... That's not a reason. The references cited should be updated to support the updated claims. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The AP article "Bucolic Ukraine forest is site of mass grave exhumation" refers to 1,316 bodies found since the withdrawal of Russian troops from the region.
Your Washington Post article links the 1,300 victims to the Kyiv region.
This Wikipedia article begins with "The Bucha massacre ... was the killing and abuse of Ukrainian civilians by Russian Armed Forces during the fight for and occupation of the Ukrainian city of Bucha
Your Washington Post article says "After months of meticulous ... investigation, officials in Bucha said ... they had reached what may be the closest they will get to a final accounting of victims ... 458 bodies ...
Your Washington Post article also says "Bucha ... accounting for a third of the estimated total of 1,300 victims.
So, we're seeing 1,300 linked to the Kyiv region
and 458 linked to Bucha KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Then tagging the source is the wrong approach. It needs to be discussed here in enough detail to understand your concern. The issue appears to be a matter of specificity of location, rather than accuracy of source. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Then tagging the source is the wrong approach." ... The source does not support the claim. Therefore, tagging the source seems to be the logical approach for the time being ... "It needs to be discussed here in enough detail to understand your concern." ... That's fine. I've written my concerns here... "The issue appears to be a matter of specificity of location, rather than accuracy of source." ... No. It's still both. The "over 1,000" simply does not support a claim of 1,300. Surely, you can find another source. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
If you claim "over 1000" ... and your source says "1,300" ... that's fine. Your source gives a number that is indeed "over 1000". Your source is simply more precise and everything is fine.
But if you claim "1,300" ... and your source says "over 1000", that is not fine. Your source is not supporting your claim. It is not supporting "1,300" or "2,000" or "10,000" either ... all of which are "over 1,000" KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"Safari" regiment involvement

Article doesn't say a word about ukrainian "Safari" regiment "cleansing saboteurs and collaborator". I wonder, how many victims were killed by them? https://lb.ua/society/2022/04/02/512039_polk_spetspriznachennya_safari_pochav.html https://24tv.ua/ru/specnazovcy-polka-policii-safari-nachali-zachistku-buchi_n1933189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.251.215.180 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean the two sources used to defend the opening paragraph are both funded by one of the belligerents in the conflict. So I guess a better question is do you have any WP:RS for that line? Or should we rewrite it to include the statement that it's only belligerents in conflict alleging blame?--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The line itself is from primary source - Ukrainian national police official website. 178.89.22.159 (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Torture chamber

ConfusedAndAfraid, RFE/RL is not the only source for the statement, and the BBC article clearly says that the basement was used (not "allegedly") by Russian troops for torture ("There, the Russians poured water over his legs so he would freeze, and they held a gun to his head." and adjacent paragraphs). Kleinpecan (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not see the reference to torture in the BBC article, but I must stress that you are incorrect on it's contents. The only reference to torture in there that I found was an allegation made by a "police chief" to the BBC. BBC did not state that they had verified or that they had attempted to verify it. Furthermore, BBC is also a state broadcaster of a belligerent and is merely citing a direct participant's claims. It is not presenting any other evidence. I'd say those are two pretty weak references. But apparently I'm not allowed to edit these articles anyway. I'd suggest at least a change of wording is required for this to remain in the lede but that's just my opinion.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
BBC is considered generally reliable (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BBC), and the United Kingdom is not a belligerent in the war. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong, according to the British Partliament. BBC is at the very least tainted due to Britain's active role in the war.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Sending military aid is not the same as directly participating in a war. The UK is a non-belligerent. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
BBC is WP:RS. You might also want to see WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek 05:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
That source does not say the BBC is tainted. The BBC is not a “state broadcaster” but has an independent board and editorial policy, and is a consensus reliable source. The UK is not a belligerent in this war. The above argument is pushing beyond what’s reasonable. —Michael Z. 13:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In what universe is the United Kingdom a belligerent in the war? Ukraine wishes that the United Kingdom were a belligerent. Indeed, this war has largely been fought by Ukraine alone, at least in terms of who is in the trenches. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

A problem of sources

The elephant in the middle of the room, an elephant we don't want to see. The BBC and company are rooting for Ukraine. Pretending that the BBC and company, not to speak of think tanks like ISW or the Atlantic Council, are reliable and unbiased and have no agenda is rather naive in my opinion. All the pro_Russian sources are rejected because they are propaganda (they are), but I don't see the same scepticism when it comes to the pro-Ukrainian version. 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be unbiased (WP:BIASED). And how exactly are the BBC and others "rooting for Ukraine"? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Which specific sources are you referring to? Sources by the BBC are used on the page a couple of times, but there are also various sources from other websites, such as Al Jazeera and "Media Zona". Unless this is the "and company" that you have alluded to above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@62.99.89.51 Western media usually considered trustworthy that sometimes expressed solidarity with Ukraine are not subject to the same pressure as Russian state owned or state influenced media.
Just looking at what trustworthy western media and Russian state affiliated media reported in these months we can clearly notice a stark contrast in number and quality of fake news, on one said numerous and intentional, rare and mostly unintentional on the other, Russian and western respectively.
Besides yours is not a good source criticism, you should be pointing at individual statements made by western media and not just calling them untrustworthy because of their outspoken solidarity for Ukraine.
This is how source verification is supposed to work: if you find claims you think are worth disputing present in western media( there are many media companies in the west so tell which one) report them and they will be addressed, don't just vaguely state western media have a pro-ukrainian bias. Castagna98 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek 06:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The assertion of over 400 deaths

Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty Intl have retained this figure in their reports. They retained 22 cases of extrajudicial killings 2A01:E34:ECB9:690:C126:9E75:16D6:EDC2 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of source other than Amnesty and HRW that support the death toll. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
On 29 June OHCHR said In Bucha alone (Kyiv region), OHCHR documented the unlawful killings, including summary executions, of at least 50 civilians [10]. Where did you find the 22 cases figure? I see that Amnesty reported 22 cases of extrajudicial killings in Bucha, but that was at the end of May [11]. As far as I know, "at least 50 civilians" (OHCHR) is the most recent and reliable figure. I agree, however, that According to local authorities, 458 bodies have been recovered from the town might be misleading, as it suggests that all of them were killed in the "massacre", that is, voluntarily killed, while most of them probably died during the shelling and around 50 were actually murdered. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean that shelling civilians is acceptable? Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post: "... 458 bodies, of which 419 bore markings they had been shot, tortured or bludgeoned to death". Kleinpecan (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"Baseless", yet supported by cited sources. Interesting. Nicodene (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Local authorities are not a sound base as they have a vested interest in painting a darker picture, as happens in every conflict. I take your point about OHCHR’s figure, which i hadn’t seen. Considering the almost 10x gap between OHCHR’s figures and local authorities’ figures, i would suggest that the page be edited to reflect rather large uncertainty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8440:3112:40a5:b591:58c6:89d4:3c08 (talk • contribs)

Reliable Sources don’t seem to agree. UN OHCHR makes it clear by “at least” that their figure is their own, incomplete direct count, not an estimate of total: “10×” = apples and oranges. —Michael Z. 16:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
UN OHCHR July human-rights report for Ukraine[12]:16 does note hundreds of civilians murdered by Russian forces in northern Ukraine in February and March, and notes over 1,346 killed in Kyiv oblast reported by authorities.
The argument casting doubt on “local authorities” because they’re local is baseless and morally problematic. Ukrainian authorities are the only authorities on Ukrainian soil, and the only ones with local knowledge and resources. Trying to disqualify them and cast shade on their motives without evidence is equivalent to refusing to acknowledge the possibility ever having any information about Russian murders on Ukrainian soil. It’s an attack that favours invading war criminals. It’s a colonial argument, and it’s an attack on the victim group of atrocity crimes. —Michael Z. 16:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the 27 September report cannot be downloaded in English - there's a broken link and you can only download the Russian and Ukrainian versions. I wrote an email to OHCHR to report the problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I was citing p 16, paragraphs 35 and 36 in the Ukrainian-language version. One can copy-paste into whatever translation service to confirm. —Michael Z. 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt your translation is correct, but the document is of general interest and I'd like to have a copy in English. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, i happened to work in western international organizations for over 7 years at high level, and i can tell you that « at least 55 » means absolutely not « 450 ». So, until further massacres deaths are authentified by neutral organizations, i suggest you water down the assertion on the page, because, as is well known, the first casualty of war is truth. When additional victims will be documented, i will be the first one to recommend blaming the russians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8440:340F:940A:8825:23AC:8AF9:56F6 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring up BBC News, The Washington Post and other sources that are cited here on the reliable sources noticeboard, and see how it goes. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I would if they were neutral. But they are not, as u can see by the fact that they did not wrote about any reports on Bucha from the independent organizations quoted above by reviewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8440:340F:940A:8825:23AC:8AF9:56F6 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually I don’t see any contradiction between the sources. We know that at least 50 people were victim of "unlawful killings, including summary executions" (OHCHR) and we know that they found 458 bodies in a grave (WaPo). Why should there be a contradiction? It's likely that some of the people in the grave were not subjected to summary execution but died during the shelling, while fighting, and from natural causes. I think we should report all the relevant information supported by RS and let the reader figure out the scale of the massacre, which arguably does not include only killings "in cold blood" (extrajudicial executions) but also civilians killed in deliberate or indiscriminate attacks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your views on reporting all assertions, no question.
However, the page being titled "Bucha Massacre", i believe it's worthwhile to separate clearly what is known for sure (ie: cold blood extrajudicial executions) from what is alleged. 2A01:E34:ECB9:690:EC54:30C:2B6E:68F0 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
One may believe that killing hundreds of civiand by shelling is O.K. Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference style

There is a lot of link clutter in the text. Should the reference style be changed to WP:LDR ?Grieg2 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

GOCE

I placed a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Bucha massacre to prepare for a Good Article Nom.  // Timothy :: talk  15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023

Add the following: Following the Russian withdrawal the Ukrainian armed force took control of the town for 10 days or so to weed out "collaborators". After this the journalists were allowed in and the bodies were shown leading to suggestions that the Ukrainians were responsible for the massacre. 203.214.159.8 (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The primary sources for this are clear and unrefuted but no English language press seems to cover them. Coverage seems to stop almost dead before the end of April 2022 after a flood of articles calling USSR era flechette ammo "Russian", which is misleading.
As it stands this article is profoundly POV and does not deal seriously with the actual credible response to these charges: that at least some of the "73 civilians" provably killed during the RU occupation were actually combatants out of uniform, that the flechette ammo was in use only by Ukraine forces, that there was a "cleansing" operation that was announced but oddly no "saboteurs" were arrested. There is no final report from coroners and ICC charges Putin with some other charge but after 15 months nothing regarding Bucha at all. 156.34.165.234 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
'After this'? I suggest reading the article. Nicodene (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Casualties update

There are 501 names on memorial plaques - https://meduza.io/short/2023/07/02/v-buche-otkryli-installyatsiyu-v-pamyat-o-zhitelyah-ubityh-vo-vremya-rossiyskoy-okkupatsii-fotografiya - a volunteer needed to please update lead and intro table with new figure. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


A Telegraph documentary (http youtu.be IrGZ66uKcl0) covers the early occupation. Given the lack of any final forensics report, which strongly suggests a result not well matching someone's narrative... It's an important source for neutrality since it shows and admits explicitly that:

  • Some early casualties are non uniformed combatants, not civilians
  • Others are captured and then later seem to be dead (out of uniform combatants have no PoW rights, are neither PoW nor civilian)
  • There are definitely some line of fire deaths attributable to over reactions but also clearly documented executions and tortures.
  • There seems to be absolutely no mention at all of the late stage deaths from flechettes and alleged executions as Ukraine troops enter, despite the documentary dealing in such detail with the early deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.165.234 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. — Golden talk 20:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bucha massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Golden (talk · contribs) 21:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. — Golden talk 21:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead & Infobox

  • Eyewitness accounts from residents of Bucha said that the Russian Armed Forces carried out the killings. - I would add "Additionally" at the beginning of this sentence to better integrate it with the previous sentence.
  • Move link for "summary executions" to its first mention.
 Done Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Background

  • moved south towards Kyiv. -> "moved south towards the city" to avoid repeating Kyiv twice in the same sentence.
  • Wikilink Bucha here.
 Done Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Reports

  • men, women, and children - You use an Oxford comma in this instance, but not in many others. I assume that you prefer not to use the Oxford comma, so I won't include any points about where to insert them. If my assumption is incorrect, please let me know.
  • Wikilink first instance of mass grave.
 Done – Both points addressed. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The "After the Russian withdrawal" section appears disorganised. It seems as though you included as many facts about the bodies as possible without following a clear structure. I suggest organising the information in a more structured manner, such as by first discussing the discovery of the bodies (including who first reported them), followed by the state of the bodies, and finally, the media's assessment.
  • related that drunken Russian soldiers told them of carrying out sadistic acts against Ukrainians. - Does "related" have such a meaning as a verb? It's my first time coming across it. If yes, keep that, if not, rewrite the sentence like this: "Villagers who were asked to help identify a beheaded body reported that drunken Russian soldiers had told them about carrying out sadistic acts against Ukrainians."
  • I suggest removing the "Use of flechettes" subsection since it is only three sentences long. The information in this subsection could be incorporated into the "After the Russian withdrawal" subsection.
  • Some of them had no light or electricity for weeks, using candles for heating water and cooking. They came out of hiding only when it was clear the Russians had left, welcoming the arrival of Ukrainian troops. - I believe this information would be more relevant to the article on the Battle of Bucha, as it does not directly pertain to the massacre itself. However, this is just a suggestion and is optional.
 Not done – Previous four points not yet addressed. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done – These points have been addressed. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  • You've wikilinked BBC and The Guardian in this section already, so remove the second links.
 Done Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I feel that the majority of the information in the "Satellite images" subsection would be better placed in the "Russian response" section, where it could be used to refute Russian claims.
  • The "Geographic distribution" subsection is unnecessary.
 Not done – Previous two points not yet addressed. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done – Although "Satellite images" text has yet to be properly integrated into its new section. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Reported death count

  • This section is ambiguous about whether it refers to the deaths in the Bucha region or in Bucha town only. It would be better to specify the scope of the article and the section. Is the article focused on the massacre that occurred in the town of Bucha, or does it also cover the killings that took place in the surrounding area?
 Done – I've rearranged the section to better distinguish purely urban from regional death tolls. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Russian units involved

  • Again, this section has structural issues. After reading the entire section, it is still unclear to me which units were responsible for the massacre. Many different units are mentioned, each sourced from different references. It would be better to organize the information into one or two paragraphs, rather than presenting each source separately.
  • Briefly introduce Vladimir Putin (e.g., "Russian President Vladimir Putin").
 Done – Rearranged section to better consolidate mentions of Russian units and separating such mentions from Ukrainian intentions and foreign intelligence activity. I did not see where mention of Putin was necessary. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Investigations

  • into events in Bucha -> "into the events in Bucha" since we're referring to specific events.
  • with the area treated as a crime scene - Do we know how large this area was? As in, did it cover the entirety of Bucha or only places where bodies were found?
 Done – I have removed text in question, as it's not supported by proximate citation. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Reactions

  • Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba - You've already introduced Kuleba earlier. Simply "Kuleba" or "Dmytro Kuleba" is enough here.
  • Ditto for Putin.
  • Wikilink and briefly introduce Zelenskyy since this appears to be the first time we're mentioning him.
  • to show reporters and the world the reported atrocities in Bucha. - There's some editoralising here. Did Zelenskyy say he visited the area with reporters to "show them and the world the atrocities in Bucha"?
  • Russian forces used tanks to crush Ukrainian civilians in cars - This should also be in quotes.
  • Michel is the president of the European Council, not EU Council. Also link, European Council.
  • Link NATO.
  • There is no need to link the UN Security Council here since it has already been linked earlier in the article. Although it is allowed to duplicate the link in each section, since the UNSC was mentioned earlier in this section without being linked, there is no need to link it where it is currently linked.
  • President Zelenskyy - Simply using "Zelenskyy" is sufficient. This applies to all instances of "President Zelenskyy" in the article, except for the first mention of Zelenskyy.
  • Wikilink European Commission.
  • orchestrated by British operatives in order to introduce new sanctions against Russia - This should be a quote.
  • Briefly introduce Josep Borrell.
 Done – Have made changes accordingly, although I wasn't able to confirm "Russian forces..." and "orchestrated..." quotes. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Russian response and denial

  • Give a brief description of Bellingcat.
  • No need to introduce Putin and Lukashenko again.
  • Merge the paragraphs about Nebenzya.
  • Sergei Klokov, a driver for Moscow's police headquarters, who is originally from Bucha, was arrested after he told colleagues what he had heard from his father and Ukrainian family friends about the Russian invasion. Among Klokov's alleged crimes was saying that Russian soldiers were killing Ukrainian civilians. - This doesn't explicitly mention Bucha, so I'd remove it.
 Done – Have made changes according to these comments. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  • Spot-checked the following references: #1, 11, 26, 42, 50, 52, 76, 82, 92, 112, 119, 143, 187b
    • Reference #26 does not mention "fake news".
  • The references are reliable, except for reference #160 of Telesur. However, since it is used as a primary source, it can be given a pass.
 Done – I've changed the wording supported by ref. #26, to "staged performance". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

General comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redaction

With apologies to all who responded to the IP's accusations, I've redacted the thread concerning Lyudmyla Denisova as a BLP violation. From my reading of sources, including the Newsweek article cited by the IP, the issues surrounding Denisova have to do with her handling and emphasis of certain atrocities along with criticism of her administration of reporting and evacuation, and not what the IP alleges are fabrications. I've blocked the IP with no talkpage access, since they've repeated the defamation on their talkpage. A reminder - editors are expected to adhere to BLP policies everywhere. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Denisova is significant because of the bald admission of exaggeration of fake atrocity. She was fired for it only after being caught. That's significant in context of this article as it shows propaganda practices. As the article deals up front with some of those by Russia (bald denials without details, using a few dubious cases to dismiss all charges etc) it is fair to deal with contemporary Ukraine methods of propaganda at about the same priority. 156.34.165.234 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but the IP was making frank accusations without any support, which violated BLP. And two wrings don't make a right, or provide a reason to ignore Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bucha_massacre/Archive_3&oldid=1248318681"