Talk:Bucha massacre

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)

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)

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)

New evidence related to the massacre

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)