Talk:Bucha massacre

"Allegedly" should be removed

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

No, it should not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial evidence

As of now, the article states that the first evidence appeared on April 2nd; there is actually some from April 1st: https://twitter.com/ViktoriiaUAH/status/1509985789404459011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.151.111 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Video from evening of April 1. In videos that came later, bodies have a slightly different position. There are also missing cars. Conclusion - manipulations were made over the place. 2A02:2168:8E11:D700:ADF1:4C00:3EBE:AC1 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Twitter (RSP entry) posts are user-generated content, and cannot be cited in the article by themselves. Feel free to present reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, for this claim if they are available. — Newslinger talk 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Reports" paragraph claims: "Initial video footage following the Russian withdrawal was posted to social media on Saturday, 2 April" and cites a Washington Post article. The article, however, does not claim that. It only says: "Video posted to social media on Saturday and verified...". Shouldn't the word "initial" be removed? 212.187.165.227 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The date has been changed to 1 April with new sources. Please see #The first social media report of the massacre was on the 1st of April, not 2nd for details. — Newslinger talk 08:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

CNN has also confirmed the social media video, and probably others, so we don’t need to cite Twitter. Elinruby (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on lead

{{rfc}} Should the lede be reformed, and if so, how? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

List of some issues (in my opinion)

Long explanation: As I write the article's lead section looks like this: In March 2022, during the Battle of Bucha in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian troops reportedly committed a massacre by summarily executing 300 civilian inhabitants of Bucha as well as committing other war crimes. A few edits before, the lede was this: The Bucha massacre refers to the war crimes committed by Russian troops in the Ukrainian town of Bucha during the Battle of Bucha of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think the current lede is infinitely better but this lede also seems lacking. I will add the information/reasoning below: It is generally agreed (with the only exception being the Kremlin, which is, well, a partisan source) that a massacre/series of war crimes was perpetrated in Bucha when it was under Russian occupation. The extent to which this developed is unclear, however. As for the "300 deaths" estimate, the first source given in the infobox (The Moscow Times) only gives this figure when it quotes local authorities saying that 300 people had been buried inside mass graves. How do we know these people were "summarily executed"? What if some of them died of starvation or by accident? The second source given (The Siasat Daily) never gives a death toll estimate at all. By adding "reportedly", the lede implies that there may not have been a massacre, and as above, a massacre or at least some other atrocity definitely happened. Are there any WP:RS saying that a massacre didn't occur? Investigations by The Guardian and Human Rights Watch say there was. The biggest issue – The title feels clunky. The phrase "as well as committing other war crimes" feels unnatural, for instance.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Until we have multiple independent sources for the number of deaths, we should not give them in WP's voice in the lede (reporting claims made by various sources is fine). An RFC seems premature here; the news coverage is changing too rapidly, by the time the RFC closes a good lede will probably look competely different. HLHJ (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The lede has already changed again. While generally supporting the RFC opener's concerns, I'd suggest that this RFC be closed for now. A lede RFC might be a good idea later. HLHJ (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"It is generally agreed (with the only exception being the Kremlin," - yeah, suuure. Everyone agrees from Beijing to Caracas. The only exception is the Kremlin. 95.32.198.75 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I'm going to deactivate this as an RfC. There is no well-formed RfC question here, and no WP:RFCBEFORE has been done. This is an issue that is going to naturally be sorted out as the event evolves, but regardless, should be hashed out through regular and well-defined talk page discussions initially. Only if there's an actual dispute should we have RfCs. The fact that there's been minimal engagement with the RfC so far also shows the question is not well-formed atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns expressed by the OP. I also agree it is too soon for numbers in wikivoice. Elinruby (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Various Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian sources are alleging that the 64th motorized rifle brigade of Russia and it's leader Azatbek Asanbekovich are the perpetrators of the Bucha massacre. Would it be against Wikipedia standard to write that the brigade was responsible? And if not, is it too early to put both the brigade and it's leader in a Leader's section of the Battle of Bucha page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We should get more than one source before we make a decision. I would like to note that Stopcor seems to be a reliable source as it is promoted by the European Union Anti-Corruption Initiative in Ukraine. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I included the claim that 64th Motor Rifle Brigade were present (as presumably the main Russian force) in Bucha, attributed to Ukrainian military intelligence; whether or not the brigades' members were responsible for the massacre is a different question. Being present at the scene of a crime at the time or just before the time of occurrence doesn't guarantee guilt.

I don't see how we can write that the 64th Brigade was the perpetrator until either legal charges are laid (e.g. by the ICC or by a national court under universal jurisdiction), in which case members of the brigade would be suspects or charged with. There are cases when the media and other sources overwhelmingly agree on a perpetrator prior to or without a legal conviction and Wikipedia accepts the term perpetrator, but that's generally only when the perpetrators are caught in the act (or killed), and so far, at least, that's not the case here. WP:BLP guidelines apply for the Russian soldiers in 64th Motor Rifle Brigade who are still alive.

Stopcor does seem to be a serious source, but if my understanding of the autotranslation is correct, it mainly gives details about the 64th Brigade (making it sound quite brutal), without actually making its own claim of 64th Brigade responsibility; it only seems to say that Arestovich attributed responsibility to the 64th Brigade. The statement that 64th Brigade have been accused by Ukrainian military intelligence (and by Arestovich as a spokesperson) as responsible for the massacre would seem to be usable as an accusation, though not to say that the Brigade members "were the perpetrators". Boud (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Genocide

The current lead says that Ukrainian politicians have named the massacre a genocide and are asking for the ICC to investigate.

While I suppose the proposed ICC investigation is notable enough for the lead, I don't see how treating the personal opinions of politicians as equal to scholarly consensus doesn't violate WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• On the contrary, it seems very important that we include what politicians say. While we aren't going to label it a genocide conclusively until scholarly consensus comes out, it should be fine as long as it is attributed so that people know who said it and that it is not accepted consensus. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's okay to say that it's politicians who claimed it was a "genocide" but not more than that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A subsection on Intent, to cover claims of genocidal intent, would make sense if we had serious sources (academic, or from reputable human rights organisations or bodies) describing the outlines of the arguments and evidence for genocidal intent in this massacre. We don't seem to have that (yet?). Without genocidal intent, this might still be a crime against humanity. But we would need sources. Boud (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Seen a bunch of generals on CNN saying it is too soon to say genocide, although claiming that a country isn’t a country might go to show intent at some future point. It is notable that Zelenskyy says this but we don’t need to agree with him, and shouldn’t. These same generals however do say that events do seem to qualify for atrocity crimes and crimes of aggression. FYI. Elinruby (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Two columns for reactions of nations makes it easier to read / navigate: Cell phones will see just a single column

Making the article easier to read / navigate is important. When in column format, the appearance is more tidy as well.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BuchaKyiv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have notified the provider of the photo that they didn't release their copyright properly. I did so in both English and Ukrainian.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone asked me to open a discussion on gratuitous images in the article

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

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

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

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

As the person who disagreed with the external links being used, I appreciate this matter being brought up here and on my user page. My main objection to these images being included is that they were gratuitous only in that there were three external links being used here, which seems excessive to me. I understand that these images are noteworthy, but I personally don't see the benefit to the average reader in providing an external link to these three images in the main article, and including three in a sidebar list seems to violate WP:GRATUITOUS IMO. There are already other images of the atrocity mentioned in the article (which I personally think violates MOS:SHOCK, but that deserves a separate discussion here).

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

I would respectfully point out that WP:GRATUITOUS does allow for graphic images, if they meet certain criteria.

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

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

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

Why is the image censored if Wikipedia is not censored?

The image is blurred but has a dead body inside. Was this the best image that could be found, did we put WP:NOTCENSORED on hold because this will be a widely viewed article and WP:UNPRECEDENTED applies, or does the rule of least astonishment apply to images even if it means censorship?

So far, it's the best version of the picture currently available on Wikimedia Commons.

You (or someone) can go to Wikimedia Commons and contact the username who posted it. You, or someone, might then want to ask them if they can get an uncensored version of the photo.

They are Ukrainian and I suggest you use Google Translate (which is free, you can just Google it) (English to Ukrainian) to ask them for help. **When translating try to keep your writing simple and short, for best resuts.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Zachistka

Wikipedia has an article about Zachistka, and Bucha is now mentioned there---seem to be some similarities. Only one English-language reliable source so far to explicitly refer to it as a Zachistka though, this article from The Economist, near the end. Worth a mention on the article about Bucha? Paris1127 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Worth a mention, it is also noted by Bne IntelliNews here and by ABC.es here (I don't know Spanish so had to google translate it) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither source seems to explicitly call Bucha an example of zachistka though... The Economist refers to a video where a Russian soldier uses the term (and says he was operating in Kyiv's NW suburbs), while ABC's piece refers mostly to Irpin. Paris1127 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is only a single paragraph in the Zachistka article about the Bucha massacre. So there is no significant conflict or overlap as per "disambiguation" or "merge article" requirements.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're saying we should include it or not... In other news, The Washington Post used the term, but in an editorial. Paris1127 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian reaction

It doesn't make much sense to have the reaction/denial by the Russian authorities stuck in Reactions>Countries, hidden in the bottom right corner of the page, together with Chile and Sweden. Many readers will be interested in how the Russians reacted to the accusations, thus the info is highly notable and should be more visible. This edit of mine had a point. If we don't want to have it in the "Investigation" section, then I suggest we create a self-standing section, "Russian reaction" - highly visible and well sourced. And TASS is a reliable source as far as statements by the Russian authorities are concerned, so quoting it extensively shouldn't be a problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know much on how it has been done with other (similar) articles, but Douma chemical attack lists Syria under "Reactions". KajMetz (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I guess WP:OTHERCONTENT in this case. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:MRDA is also a thing. We don't need to give extra emphasis to Russia, particularly if their response is exactly what you'd expect whether there allegations were true or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:MRDA (an essay - not a policy, not a guideline) is that relevant here: "The mere fact that someone has denied unsavory allegations does not automatically merit inclusion in an article, especially if that allegation is very well sourced". But here we still don't know much about the allegations, do we? The bodies have just been found, we have reports by the Ukrainian authorities and witnesses, we don't have a closed investigation, let alone a trial and a judgement. The massacre is not, and cannot be at this early stage, "very well sourced", and what the Russian authorities say about what happened or might have happened in Bucha is relevant.

Anyway, there's another argument to into account. If (as I'm personally inclined to believe) the massacre was done by the Russian forces and the victims were mostly civilians, then it will be important to assess the level and nature of the responsibilities. Apparently the Defense Ministry is covering up what's happened. Does he know the truth? By denying the facts he is assuming a certain degree of political if not criminal responsibility. And he's not only denying, he's also making statements of fact which sooner or later it will be possible to verify: has the Russian army left on the 30th? has the Mayor released a video on the 31st? All this is highly notable, because it has broad legal and political consequences, while the reactions by Sweden, Chile, Italy etc. are less relevant and not vital for understanding and assessing the subject. The reaction of the Russian authority clearly belongs to the article and deserves an accurate account. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't get why the reactions by countries such as Chile and Sweden are not relevant. These should be included, if not just mentioned. But they were removed altogether. The result: it does not represent a global view on the issue. Reactions from anywhere should be included, as I said, even if they're only mentioned briefly. Bedivere (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The "flag salad" has been removed quite abruptly. On this there's a discussion here below. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that Russia's response is "exactly what you'd expect". This is only true for someone familiar with the topic and with usual Russian responses to accusations (under their current regime). I would argue that there is a range of completely reasonable responses in general - e.g. "we will investigate this", or "we didn't order this, we prosecute all war criminals within our military". Compare with Ukrainian response to the videos of kneecapping Russian POWs, and many other similar cases. ObsidianPotato (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• For the record. Re: current placement of the Russian reaction in the #Aftermath section. I am fine with it. KajMetz (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRD is the conventional method, whether it is "optional" or not. WP:BOLD is standard policy. And this is WP:NOTAVOTE, and unless people can provide arguments why this kind of silly "include every one without a second-thought" listing does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, then their arguments are not convincing at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Wrong. it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. (WP:NOTVOTE) If you can't provide reasonable, policy-based reasons why a flag-salad list should be included (for example, in the same way WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a very good reason why not to have such a list), then it doesn't really matter what the count is. Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove flag list I prefer it in the prosified format in which RandomCanadian turned it into, which only focused on the reactions of relevant nations. "Flag reaction" lists are mostly useful when a section or article is purposefully meant to include every single international reaction to a certain event. Such as International response to the Beslan school siege. However, given the width/importance of this article, which has so far proven to be the most notorious incident in the invasion, one can expect to see numerous countries giving their responses. Reactions from, say, Qatar or Somalia would be irrelevant to the situation, but responses from Poland, Belarus, Estonia the United States, etc. are. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Files

File:Місто Буча після звільнення від російських окупантів.jpg File:Місто Буча після звільнення від російських окупантів.webm --PBKIHX (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS is also to be considered. One good image (such as the one currently in the article) is more effective than giving too many; and "not censored" is not a free hand to include shocking material just because it exists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Occupation

According to the article, Bucha was invaded on February 27. However, according to the Moscow Times and Barrons, the occupation began on February 26. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The Background section of this article is based on the Battle of Bucha article. I would try to get it changed there first. — Newslinger talk 07:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Death count

According to CNN (https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-04-04-22/h_962b679d8247d848090323ceccf9ba7b) over 400 dead bodies have been found instead of the reported 300 in this article. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If you put brackets-- [ ], around the web address to your source, it then becomes a link to your source on Wikipedia.)

Then (inside the brackets and after the web address), you can also type "Link text".

Here is your source ^^^ as a link Click Here to See

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Urban Versis 32 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the "Reported casualties" section to add that the number of bodies found had been revised to 410. However nobody has fixed the infobox. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Death toll at 330–340 per local media, cited in The Times.[1] Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to the paywall so I can't verify it. But is the number referring to the number of bodies found or to the number of people who were actually confirmed to have been murdered? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The article says: The death toll in Bucha has reached between 330 and 340, according to local media.[2] Bit lacking on the detail front! Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian claims

Re [3] I'm sorry, but no, it's not enough to say "Russia denies it and says it all fake" without actually informing the reader that these disputations of the footage are bunk and have been found to be so. Yes, this is discussed in the "Aftermath" section but this is the lede and the lede summarizes the article. If articles says XYZ then lede summarizes XYZ, not XY. Volunteer Marek 23:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Video of mass grave being filled from mid-March

I would like to note that one of the videos of a mass grave being filed with body bags, allegedly from Bucha, already surfaced by mid-March. https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1502776694175895557 (does anyone know of original/better source?) I think this video deserves at least a fleeting mention in the section "During the Russian offensive". 93.103.223.236 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

To be used in page, it should be not treated as an original research. Better provide published sources that mention of this SwampKryakwa (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The account that tweeted this is himself a journalist, so I'm not sure if citing it can be considered "original research" per se... however, looking for better sources, I managed to narrow down google search to find a couple published articles from that time frame that also reported on that video: [1][2][3][4] 93.103.223.236 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not original research as the person is a journalist, as long as they are not working for a questionable news outlet depricated for unreliability by Wikipedia.

Very important to see BOTH (the lists on) Wikipedia:Deprecated sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Also, I would like to respectfully point out that Wikipedia does allow for citation of Tweets (from Twitter) under certain circumstances.

For example: Wikipedia has a "Cite Twitter" or "Cite Tweet" reference template for these purposes.

See both Template:Cite tweet and (Tweet) https://x.com/ – via Twitter. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); {{Cite tweet}}: Missing or empty |user=; Missing or empty |number= (help)

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Illia Ponomarenko is a reporter working for the The Kyiv Independent. When The Kyiv Independent publishes content authored by Ponomarenko, that content inherits the reliability of The Kyiv Independent (generally reliable, per WP:NEWSORG). But when Ponomarenko publishes content on social media or his personal website, that content is self-published because it is not subject to editorial oversight. I am not sure whether Ponomarenko meets the subject-matter expert exception ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"). Reliable secondary sources are preferred over primary ones, and exceptional claims need to be substantiated by multiple reliable sources. A self-published tweet by itself, even if published by an expert, is not enough to substantiate an exceptional claim on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Those secondary sources might be usable in the Background section, although it would be ideal to cite news sources that link those earlier reports to the more recent Bucha massacre. — Newslinger talk 02:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just because the tweet's author is a journalist doesn't make his content correct. Journalistic articles operate on a more peer-reviewed system than tweets and are thus considered more reliable/professional. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

All of this was enlightening. Thanks everyone! Chesapeake77 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks for clearing everything up. Given that I don't have edit privileges, all I'd do now is suggest that a sentence or two is added in the section During the Russian offensive, explaining that on March 13 (March 14 for the BBC source) media reported on a video that surfaced on social media, allegedly showing a mass grave in Bucha, where on March 10, 67 victims were said to be buried (which also matches what the satellite analysis says). 93.103.223.236 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Photo

Photo published by the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers. no, it's - Video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers. It's screenshot from video File:Місто Буча після звільнення від російських окупантів.webm --PBKIHX (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Tasteful images?

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

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

WP:NOTCENSORED is not a backdoor to including WP:GRATUITOUS material either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mebigrouxboy.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish editors would cool it with censoring Wikipedia because seeing a corpse spoils their morning coffee. This is an article about a massacre, there are no 'tasteful' images of a massacre, and it is not gratuitous to show images of a massacre in an article on a massacre. WP:GRATUITOUS talks about 'vulgar, obscene, or offensive' materials, which describes none of these photos. The only difference between the text of this article and the images is that you are reading the text from a clinical distance, and images evoke visceral understanding of what happened, which is harder to view from the same distance. Please try not to let your personal discomfort about seeing reality prevent us from doing the justice in truthfully covering this event. Melmann 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

War crimes are definitely not "tasteful". In contrast to the Mỹ Lai massacre, this series only took from a few weeks to a few days (for the different victims) to become wide international public knowledge, rather than 20 months. Boud (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

What you're doing is a proof by assertion without even attempting to address the arguments. War crimes are by definition not tasteful, indeed, but that doesn't mean we should seek to include as many gratuitous depictions of it as can be found. We must also take into account that Wikipedia is an open, free and internationally available encyclopedia, which means it gets read by people of all ages and from multiple countries. For example, there are cultural taboos in some places about depictions of dead people - and that is just one of the many possible concerns about this kind of stuff. We should of course depict the event as accurately as we can. If we can do so with the least astonishment while also following the rest of the guidelines about use of images (including the whole image use policy), then, as I quote, that would be the preferred way to do so - Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article.. Arguing that these concerns are "tasteless" is the Wikipedia equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

There's nonsense and then there's nonsense. Simply because there is a content disclaimer does not mean anything. WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NOTCENSORED both explain how, despite the fact that this isn't censored, we still shouldn't go out of our way to display shocking or otherwise potentially offensive material just because it exists, even less so if it isn't strictly necessary to illustrate something. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers, c. April 2022 - 01.jpg (discussion)
• Місто Буча після звільнення від російських окупантів 01.jpg (discussion)
• Місто Буча після звільнення від російських окупантів.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Unit 51460

Alleged killers https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/hunt-for-russian-commander-in-charge-of-bucha-atrocities-as-colonel-named-b992288.html Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to deny the massacre (WP:NOTAFORUM)

Some IPs as well as some new accounts exclusively editing this page are dedicated to denying the massacre, and/or disputing "Western" sources. Such comments should be removed on sight. Wikipedia is not a forum, and such comments violate WP policy. If someone believes all independent media in the free world is biased, well, this is not the place to discuss that either. It is well known that Russia actively tries to cover its crimes (article), but Wikipedia is not the platform for that. Jeppiz (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

False balance

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

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

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

Reaction section

I would be intrigued to know who and why editors has repeatedly removed the reaction of the French President, which was in prose and cited to secondary reliable sources and replaced it with a gigantic section of flags and condolences, some originally sourced to Twitter? AusLondonder (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Some people, apparently, did not take well to me pruning the section and trying to put it into prose (as it is in the diff you link); apparently because "useful" information (such as the reaction of the, I don't know, Chilean foreign ministry, literally an inconsequential half a world away) was removed; and instead of trying to put some effort into actual prose, just lazily put the listcruft back in). See the section higher up on this talk page about the "flag salad". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Thanks for that, will add to discussion above. AusLondonder (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

High quality images

File:Bucha massacre aftermath, c. April 2022.jpg

File:Bucha massacre aftermath, c. April 2022.jpg

I found the following image, which is high quality and I think would be useful to include, as it shows the destruction of the city. Perhaps it could even be the lead image, as per MOS:SHOCK? (though the current lead image should definitely remain in the article somewhere) Where do you all think it should be included? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like an appropriate suggestion. I'm going to put it in the lead and move that image lower to replace another one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted that for now. The high quality image referred to shows a lot of burned cars, not a massacre. It's not an accurate representation of the article topic, title, or the reporting in RS. Even mainstream media sources, like the BBC, have their lead images as ones showing bodies. Sure, per MOS:SHOCK, I might support depictions that are less focused on the bodies (as in the BBC lead image preceding their 'graphical image' disclaimer), but you can't have a lead image that ignores any presence of corpses in an article about a massacre. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, that's why I was hesitant to push it to be the lead image. Should it be inserted in the Aftermath section instead? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 14:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That might not be an image of the massacre but of the fighting that took place in the town prior to it. And if we don’t know we shouldn’t use it. Volunteer Marek 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this image is more fitting for Battle of Bucha. The source material doesn't seem to support these kind of images as aftermath of the massacre directly, but rather the aftermath of the battle. ObsidianPotato (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There are no civilian bodies in this photo. But this could go to Battle of Bucha.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth}

Reactions, expulsion of diplomats

It has been reported that Russian diplomats have been expelled from various countries following the massacre.[4][5][6][7] This sort of response is significant and ought to be in the article. We so far only have Lithuania's expulsion, in the reactions bit. If we agree to add this, should it be added to the reactions, following the government quotes, or add it as its own section? Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole reactions section should be rewritten as prose to allow this kind of relevant information to be included. You're free to help. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. New article. Elinruby (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

External video

BobNesh May I know why did you remove the video I added? [8] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Not involved in this, but that video does not add much to the article, at least, given we already have plenty of audio-visual stuff, we don't need stuff like this which is not very informative or otherwise significant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Read the previous comment. That's my answer, also. BobNesh (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring

The bulk of the actual 'meat' of this article is under sub-headings in "Reports", split into pre-evacuation and post-evacuation, mixed in with satellite analyses following Russian denials. It's not a particularly effective or clear structure. One milder idea is maybe having an "Evidence" section, and sub-sections like "Reports by Ukrainian authorities", "Resident testimony", "Satellite analysis", etc, would be a better approach? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not very far into the article but this sounds like a good idea. Elinruby (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Lt Col Azatbek Omurbekov

The Times has named him as the leader of the 64th Separate Motorised Rifle Brigade who occupied Bucha, calling him the "Butcher of Bucha".[9] But this is merely restating the findings of InformNapalm. This has been added and removed in the past. The fact The Times uses this source gives it more credence, but I don't think re-adding is warranted at this stage, given he is a low-profile individual and we have no idea if the Ukrainian source have their wires crossed. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, would try and prevent coming to conclusions to early. WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME still aplly to Col. Omurbekov. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I have seen InformNapalm quoted by Ukrainian sources I consider reliable, but this is bigger than one individual. So while offhand I tend to believe The Times, I agree that it would be better to focus on other aspects of this for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the archive for The Times' article, for convenience. Boud (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mistranslation of cited source

In the "Reactions" section, the response from Italian Prime Minister Maro Draghi is mistranslated (in my opinion) from the cited source. As a native Italian speaker and a fluent English speaker, I would consider translating "lasciano attoniti" to "astonishing" as a mistake, given the positive connotation of "astonishing". A more proper translation would be "shocking" or "appalling". --Data Encryption (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, done. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

War crimes vs. apparent war crimes in lede

Wikipedia has no power to adjudicate what is a war crime and what is not. It is up to international bodies such as the ICC to investigate and determine what is and isn't a war crime. Until then, it is necessary to have some kind of qualifier before the phrase "war crimes" in the lede Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but we shouldn’t help the Russians minimize it either. A lot of reliable and authoritative sources say so. If this is a concern, say that many have called it a war crime, and go into detail further down Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Imo the "apparent" phrasing isn't minimizing anything, just being accurate. It appears to be the case that war crimes were committed, but that's not something we get to decide. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mmm. Well, I believe my lying eyes. On the other hand, I just rewrote the lede sentence in a way that may address your concern. See what you think of that proposal, before somebody changes it to something else. I really gotta go do stuff now. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Has anybody flagged this as a discretionary sanctions page yet? If not, this needs to be done Elinruby (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Which kind of "flagging" are you specifically looking for? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s usually a category. I have just a minute now so I will look Elinruby (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s there. If anybody has a question about what that means, let me know Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Bold edit to lede

I have made several small copyedits and two important edits to the lede. Feel free to discuss, edit, whatever. I need to go do non-wiki things, but the new lede is my attempt at NPOV without making excuses for the Russians, and reflects my comments made in various threads above.

It is important imho to note that The Hague was *already* investigating, first because it is true and also because it gets to war crimes without saying that in wikivoice Elinruby (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1. "Photographic and video evidence of the massacre emerged on 1 April 2022 after Russian forces withdrew from the city and has since been verified."

What does "verified" mean in this context?

2. "Ukraine has asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate..."

Maybe replace "Ukraine" with "Multiple countries"? "Ukraine and Western countries"? "Ukraine and its allies"? The intention would be to neatly sneak wide international calls for an investigation (including by the ICC) into the lede without misrepresenting sources.

3. "These denials have been refuted by Bellingcat, DW, ..."

I know this is kind of nit-picky, but the quoted sources technically refute the rebuttal, not the denial. If we want to say "Russians did it" or "Russians lied about not doing it", we should quote sources that say so. ObsidianPotato (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1. as in CNN says they have verified the video 2. Yes 3. Sure Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Passive voice in first sentence illustrates the problem here

"was the killing of civilians in areas controlled by the Russian Armed Forces "

Apparently this "killing" happened ex nihilo, just happened out of nowhere, magically or something, there was no actual persons that actually DID IT. RAF only "controlled the area".

This right here illustrates the problem with these attempts at FALSE BALANCE perfectly. Aside from the fact that this is just bad writing, it's not NPOV. Nobody serious and reliable actually questions that Russian forces did it. Our lede needs to state that. You can put all the weaseling and qualifications somewhere else. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I'm struggling with here is the number of RS still using, presumably for legal reasons, language of allegations, accusations, "apparent" responsibility, and so on. You and I would agree that Russian forces killed those civilians; but, for Wikipedia's purposes, from where exactly would we appropriately assign responsibility to Russian soldiers?

I don't think that's unanswerable: I'm really wondering if there's a preponderance of "serious and reliable" sources to cite for that attribution. It does not seem so clear to me that "serious and reliable" sources leave no question about responsibility: I linked a few articles above, from today and yesterday, of mainstream Western outlets (BBC, CNN, DW) all still preferring "allegations" to affirmations of Russian forces' responsibility. On what basis do we override their extant reluctance to write that Russian forces are responsible for murdering civilians? Is it not better to just wait until those or other similar sources actively attribute responsibility in that way? Scuoise (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As the author of the passive voice edit, I don’t disagree. At the time I wrote it I was looking for consensus, and the logic was well, we know they were killed but we aren’t *positive* a Russian finger pulled the trigger. Apparently there is now eyewitness testimony for some of the killings though. So I am happy to see “by Russians” restored, with the caveat that we don’t actually know whether some of the dead died of starvation or something other than a bullet in the head. But I am fine with the edit as it stands. Elinruby (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be okay with the current phrasing as well but I would caution against adding phrases like "mass murders" or "war crimes" without qualifiers for now. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with @Scuoise - WP:OR + WP:Verifiability (WP:NotTruth). If we can find reliable sources that explicitly blame the Russian army, we can quote that then. ObsidianPotato (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Location

Can anyone provide a link to google maps, where one can see the roundabout that can be seen on the satellite images? -- Bardnet (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

With the caveat that Google's satellite images appear a bit out of date, comparing the NYT video of Yablonska Street with the Street View (from 2015, before the roundabout was constructed apparently), the approximate location is 50.54242, 30.2315746. Area appears to have been built up since Street View, but there are similarities. Paris1127 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"Alleged" is no longer necessary, the massacre has been confirmed

According to Ukrainian fact-checking website StopFake (this below is the google translated version of a Russian-language article, sorry I couldn't find an English equivalent):

There is no doubt that the civilian population was subjected to violence by the Russian military. This is confirmed by numerous testimonies of local residents of the settlements of the Kiev region, which have been under the temporary occupation of the Russian military for a month. Some of them have already been documented by the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.

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

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

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

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

And finally, the smoking gun:

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

Endless talk page discussions on how the Bucha massacre was only "alleged" and the lede should add words like "reported" should be put to an end once and for all. WP:RS all hold a general agreement: There was a massacre in Bucha. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

2. The Russian rebuttals have been proven wrong.

3. Eyewitnesses blame the Russian troops for the killings.

And that's exactly what the article says. WP:Combining sources, WP:OR. ObsidianPotato (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Examples from other similar events:

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

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

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

I don't understand the opposition to write "allegedly" when that's a direct quote from the source. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of information from reliable sources, not a place to draw logical conclusions. WP:OR, WP:Combining sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:NotTruth. ObsidianPotato (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Massacre, atrocities, or killings?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Booby-trapped bodies

I've seen accounts of booby-trapped bodies left in Bucha. Can we add them? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-war-april2-2022-1.6406411 https://www.voanews.com/a/accusations-of-russian-atrocities-in-ukraine-prompt-calls-for-tougher-sanctions-prosecutions/6513124.html https://globalnews.ca/news/8731685/ukraine-bucha-bodies-russia-war/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/03/ukraine-town-littered-with-bodies-shot-in-the-head-by-russians-16395917/ MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a reliable list with the exception of Metro, which has a rather negative entry on RSP. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Reportedly killed by Russian soldiers?

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

See Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. 185.83.93.34 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I am pretty aware of that policy, but to imply that the Russians didn't do it, as this wording does, would be fringe (Please see WP:FRINGE) - you don't have to allow for fringe views with wording in an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Swedish and Finnish response

Sweden (1) and Finland (2) have condemned the massacre. Sweden has expuled 3 Russian diplomats(3) while Finland plans to expule Russian diplomats(4). 185.83.93.34 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Will look into it. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph in lede

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

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

Dealing with propaganda war

No, we just don't do things this way on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claiming that Bucha is a fact in the middle of a propaganda war in which a number of western news outlets are actively engaging as part of the war effort is not a good way to go. In this case it is necessary to reevaluate what is and is not a reliable source and some western sources should perhaps be put in quarantine. We are facing an unprecedented level of hysterical propaganda in the western world. Perhaps we should rely on media from third party outlets from the middle east or south asia which are to be considered neutral in this conflict. US and Western Europe have clearly failed their profession and their own public which largely has lost faith in them. The Hunter Biden story is an example of this, referred to as Russian Propaganda on Wikipedia itself for over two years. I think a "non-aligned" approach is the best way to go. This is my proposal. South Asia, Middle Eastern maybe even Latin American sources. NATO sources, with perhaps a few exceptions are clearly not reliable anymore. --2.138.188.151 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Im also surprised by the blackout and open censorship in this article on the Russian position or, for example, Ukrainian MP Ilya Kiva. Wikipedia should not be used as an instrument of propaganda nor should it be censored. It may lose its long term credibility if it fails to keep its balance here. If Western / Nato sources are considered the only sources reliable, the project will eventually die. I understand there is a huge pressure from activists but there is a complete failure here to retain any form of balance so some other solution needs to be found. 2.138.188.151 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC) And of course I am not claiming Russian sources are reliable either. They are not. But neither are in what is a effectively a conflict between East and West. Wikipedia, a western project, has decided that the western position is absolute truth and all eastern positions are to be suppressed. In this case both should simply be documented. Chinese media, which is only lukewarm to Russia, should perhaps be considered here. We have, after all, seen the bodies with pro-russian white arm bands in live Ukrainian tv. It is highly unlikely that the current western position is the full truth of this story. Just as I suspect it is unlikely the Russian position is 100% accurate. --2.138.188.151 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC) The above comments are my own. I appreciate if my concrete proposals are not deleted. WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply. I propose we foucs on using reliable sources by media groups uninvolved in the conflict, ideally from non-aligned countries. I also think the positions of respective parties should be presented factually. I am surpised they are not. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not hat my comments. You disagreeing with my opinion does not mean I am trying to "disrupt wikipedia to make a point" (sic) as you are accusing me of. Again, I am of the opinion that both Russian and NATO-based sources have shown to not be reliable or unbiased in the context of the Ukraine conflict and precedence should be given to those coming from countries uninvolved in the conflict: i.e. Middle East, South Asia or Latin America.

I also think that the positions of what happened in Bucha should be presented dispassionately and not be censored as per a number of Wikipedia policies including of course WP:NPOV. We should not commit the same error as was done with the Hunter Biden story which for 2 years was described on Wikipedia as "Russian Propaganda" and now has finally been accepted by western media as factual. I see no reason to hat or delete my comment. By understanding is that doing so and misrepresenting my comments is contrary to wikipedia policies according to WP:GAME. Thank you. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My first question here is: Why has the Russian position (and that of a number of Ukrainian personalities) on what happened at Bucha been excluded from the article. Is it because it is considered "Fake News" or "Russian Propaganda"? It would be good to understand why we are diverging from WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE so radically in this article. I currently don´t understand. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You are actively engaging in what can only be described as morally abhorrent by comparing allegations of war crimes which are supported by strong evidence, with some silly American political controversy. At the absolute best, this is a result of pure and unadulterated ignorance, including of Wikipedia policy such as WP:NPOV (including the part where it says "based on reliable sources" - NPOV never ever meant "neutral according to the accused party"); at worst you're deliberately making a false equivalence in this effort, which makes it not only immoral but some more words which I ought not to utter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at the final point of WP:YESPOV, where the given example is the equally abhorrent phenomenon of Holocaust denial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

RandomCanadian I think if you hold such strong passionate views to the point that you find any form of divergence of opinion from your own "morally abhorrent" (!), you should not be editing articles related to this topic at all. I think social media is more appropriate for you (twitter, instagram etc). Again, it seems you are again WP:GAMING the system. Even deleting discussions on a talk page, which is particularly bizarre. Incidentally, comparing analysis of an obscure current event with holocaust denial I think is symptomatic of your inability to comply by wikipedia rules WP:NPA. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't hold strong views on this. I hold strong views of people who make bad arguments in an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia policies to their advantage. And when you make accusations that I'm gaming the system, without proof (and despite the example being entirely relevant), that's entirely your own problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not an obscure.current event. An obscure current event is when Tim Horton’s reopens because they are able to get milk again. I semi sort of saw your point until you started minimizing this horror. I understand what you are saying but I don’t think it is happening. Also, India and China are promoting a Russian version of events so I think you need to revise your concept of non-aligned Elinruby (talk)

Elinruby No one is minimizing this horror. Just as no one (I hope) is minimizing the horror of Russian POWs being systematically raped, mutilated and castrated by Ukrainian troops. There are questions on who the victims are and who perpetrated the killling. It is a war zone and we have information coming only from one side which evidently engages in propaganda as all parties to a conflict do.

The gigantic ukrainian flag on your user page together with your hysterically aggressive reaction to the mere suggestion of improving balance on this article are clear indicators of you holding abnormally strong views on the topic. Again, I suggest you refrain from editing articles you hold such extreme views over, since they will inherently be disruptive. I leave my question open on including all positions (particularly after security council meeting, and avoiding systemic bias (SeeWP:BIAS Regards, José Luis.JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)