Talk:Bucha massacre/Archive 1

Was it the Chechnyans?
Maybe it was Kadyrov's group? They were in Bucha. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-04/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-massacre-city-strewn-with-bodies/100963106 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.214.140 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18105417/chechen-soldiers-ukraine-war-russia-vladimir-putin-ramzan-kadyrov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.214.140 (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There were eyewitness accounts from the people living there, and none of them have said it was Chechens. Also, there were a lot of Russian dead bodies recovered, none were Chechen as far as I know. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've at the very least read one eyewitness testimony in this article by Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-street-corpse-with-hands-bound-bullet-wound-head-2022-04-03/ - that she thought some of them were Chechens.
 * Quoting: 'She said a fighter with the Russian forces who she believed was from Russia's semi-autonomous Chechnya region warned he would "cut us up." She did not say how she knew he was Chechen.'
 * Furthermore, a lot of testimonies refer to them as "Russian troops" - this could potentially mean either group. But similarly, the article doesn't currently attribute the deaths to any specific group within the Russian military. 212.187.165.227 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If they were there, they didn't do anything special. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ukraine has thousands of Chechen immigrants, so she could well be able to recognize a Chechen person.


 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources?
Is it truly 100% confirmed it was the russians or it's just alleged?

Could it be a case of Atrocity propaganda? BlackYaroslav (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The residents have confirmed it, including eye witness accounts given to Human rights watch and various reporters, including Reutuers. I mean, the twon was under Russian occupation, so who else was it going to be? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate, some photos could be easily staged. Specially the ones of civilians with their hands tied behind their back. Given that it's in Ukraine best interest to increase western involvement in the war, and the previous pro-ukrainian stories that have been debunked, i'd say there's reason for skepticism.  BlackYaroslav (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of reputable, independent journalistic sources are backing this up. While it's possible it's all an elaborate hoax, there's no reason to believe and edit under that assumption at present. We can rewrite the article when and if that comes to pass. It's a current event and things will no doubt change significantly over the coming days. We can certainly include caveats, where necessary, to that effect. ThirdDolphin (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we saying the Ukrainian army got dead bodies, tied their hands behind their backs, shot them in the head, and then littered them all over the streets of Bucha to make it look like the Russians did it? Because if we are, no sources are saying that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence at this point this was committed by Russian forces. This could be either side, and as such is alleged. There is no image or video confirming the Russian Army did this, and no court has ruled on this. The word of journalists and local residents is not a trustworthy source. Desuwulf (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're wrong on that, sorry. We do trust journalism, if published in media satisfying WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, news sources can be reliable, per WP:NEWSORG. —  Newslinger  talk   07:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw only fresh corpses. but russian troops starts to retreat 3-4 days ago. Ukranian political and information space is tottaly cleaned from any different opinions so there is no point to believe any allegations from them. 46.187.84.238 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian retreat was covered by artillery, the place is infested with mines all over and saboteurs are everywhere. It is not a 30-minute walk to re-enter the occupied town. There are hundreds of dead bodies and it takes TIME to find them, document and identify. All this process is witnessed by independent media. And how do you define "freshness" in video? Ганнуся (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the artillery fired from the Russian side and did not cover the advance of the Ukrainian forces? By the way, if saboteurs were left there, then why risk shelling the territory in which they are located? As far as I know, in Kyiv, a considerable number of civilians were killed by mistake by territorial defense. Also, white armbands were seen on some of the civilians killed in Bucha. 46.187.84.238 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question - how do you define "freshness" in video? Ганнуся (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Livor mortis. Skin changes color. If dark spots appear on the skin of the fingers, then it passed about a day. After a week, the skin acquires a common dark yellowish tint. 46.187.84.238 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that there was posted a video by a Ukrainian soldier from the BOATSMAN BOYS in Bucha where he discussed with a fellow solider if it was acceptable to shoot civilians without blue armbands and got a reply "Yes, for sure". He already removed this video but it is there in some (yes, pro-Russian) channels. E.g. here https://t.me/swodki/59478 5.228.35.252 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't discuss any video from propagandists' channels. Ганнуся (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also sorry but you need to, cause otherwise you will not build the full picture of this terrible event.
 * Please notice that the video I'm referring to was recorded by a Ukranian patriot. It was only shared by the propagandists' channels. So I'd be glad to know your opinion on it. 5.228.35.252 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also do not open any propagandists' channels due to personal security reason. Ганнуся (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 0:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5zEmbGVcYA this man was killed around 24-48 hours. This video from media that banned in Russia. Is this a sufficiently independent media for your non-totalitarian country? 46.187.84.238 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Check this page to see why and how much they are questionable:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch
 * It is extensive and with many elements.
 * "Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."
 * "According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others." The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. "
 * "In May 2014 an open letter was published criticising Human Rights Watch for what were described as its close ties to the government of the United States. The letter was signed by Nobel Peace Laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Corrigan, former UN Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard A. Falk, and over 100 scholars and cultural figures."
 * And so on. Exolind (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters compromised itself many times. Russian troops left Bucha on 30th of March and there were no corpses according to photos. The next day a video was made with Ukrainian soldier calling to shoot people with white bandages (civilians). And finally on 4th of April Ukrainians shoot a video with corpses that a 24-48 hours dead. How do you think, who killed them? Vladkras (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a scene of mass atrocities, and this was definitely done by the Russians. It could be possible that some stories were exaggerated, but overall there was a series of major war crimes. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is nothing "definit" in the fog of war.
 * Ukrainian National Police was / is cleaning up Bucha from the supporters of Russia and it might have led to a set of very tragic events which might explain that many bodies have white armbands (meaning pro-Russian). 5.228.35.252 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Human Right Watchs has already been mentioned by many as a questionable source with a bias (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch), including its founder, prize nobel winners and many scholars. I put extracts as a reply below
 * - Although it's from a different source, which has to be verified, here are other versions here, with pictures, mentioned alegedly by "french journalists":
 * https://detv.us/2022/04/03/russian-war-reporter-on-the-real-perpetrators-of-the-bucha-massacre-rt-en/
 * This version shows a dead body with white armband.
 * It mentions russians left on March 30-31st (as confirmed by the mayor before)
 * That the dead bodies are "new" (or "fresh").
 * That some wear a russian-support white armband.
 * That some hold a ukrainian passport in their hand, as if trying to prove they are ukrainians (which they won't have to do if faced with russian forces, but would have to do if faced with ukrainian forces accusing them of being saboteurs, for instance).
 * It puts claims and evidence which can be indicative of "a massive purge" by ukrainian security forces, conducted on April 1st and 2. Exolind (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your detv.us link is a republication of RT (Russia Today), which is a deprecated source. RT is not reliable and cannot be used in this article.Per the talk page guidelines, the purpose of a talk page is to improve the article, and not to speculate about the article subject. To everyone on this page, please limit suggestions to claims that are supported by reliable sources, and include those sources in your comment. —  Newslinger  talk   07:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Image licensing issues
The image heading this article has problems with it's licensing that may lead to it being deleted: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_for_Bucha_form_vokzalyna.jpg

We should consider swapping it out when a better, licensed image becomes available as this one is liable to be deleted. ThirdDolphin (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian "denial"?
I'm talking about this statement here in the Aftermath section:
 * Russian authorities denied that their forces had targeted civilians during the battle.

The problem is the source never talks about specific Russian responses to the incident in Bucha. The closest thing I could fund in the source is this quote:
 * Despite the Russian authorities claiming that their forces are not targeting civilians in Ukraine, there is clear evidence of the opposite. Russian forces have repeatedly attacked densely populated residential areas of Ukraine’s cities with missiles, air bombs, and artillery.

This is only about the Russian reaction in general. Not about Bucha in specific. I've added a Failed verification tag to this claim as I can't find any evidence whatsoever that Russian officials have said this, or even made an official statement on the topic. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian Defence Ministry is denying it: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60949706?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62498d9f4f71af55b46169bc%26Questions%20over%20Russian%20Bucha%20denials%262022-04-03T12%3A46%3A56.299Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:8c3f96fe-38ea-436a-a719-f0de64607dd6&pinned_post_asset_id=62498d9f4f71af55b46169bc&pinned_post_type=share 119.74.177.38 (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I stand corrected. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Russian denial in full is here https://t.me/MFARussia/12230 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.113.102 (talk)

Article is extremely flawed
This article has serious neutrality issues, and it also editorializes in some places, adding unsourced details which seem only to be speculative. AriseYeWretchedOfTheEarth (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You provide no example, so impossible to follow up on your comment. Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * - Human Rights Watch is mentioned a questionable source on wikipedia (see the details on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch).
 * - There are other versions which are explained here: https://detv.us/2022/04/03/russian-war-reporter-on-the-real-perpetrators-of-the-bucha-massacre-rt-en/, including pictures of killed people wearing a white armband, mentioning also the dates when the russians left, and mentions of some people having an ukrainian passport in their hand when they were killed. This version has not been verified but it exists and points out to other speculative information on our current page of the Bucha massacre. Exolind (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, that detv.us link is a republication of an article from RT (Russia Today), which is a deprecated source. RT is not a reliable source and cannot be used in this article. —  Newslinger  talk   07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ignoring RT in this situation is pretty much biasing article towards pro-Ukrainian point of view. It should be included in a separate section talking about claims of this being possibly committed by Ukrainian side 91.193.177.154 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Claims that these atrocities have been committed by Ukrainians are WP:FRINGE. This can be mentioned in one sentence, but a separate section would give those stories undue weight. BeŻet (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Undermining one side of the conflict around the topic because other side's media are much more active on it is making article biased, which should be avoided SwampKryakwa (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For Russian state media, TASS is preferred. It and some other Russian state media sources can sometimes be used with in-text attribution to convey the Russian government's position. RT, however, has a poor reputation for accuracy and the Wikipedia community has determined that it should not be used in almost all cases. (WP:ABOUTSELF is an exception, but it is not currently applicable to this article.) —  Newslinger   talk   21:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Completely fake
There is a source with analyses that explaining fake with video of staging scene - Ukrainian soldiers drag dead people on street and many more. There where videos of deputy from Butcha driving same streets before journalist on same day without bodies. Also lack of logic that Russians shell themselves and when they redeploy leaving dead bodies on streets? And dead people on streets are wearing white ribbon on arm opposite from blue of Ukrainians indicating they are Russians or Russians sympathizers.

Source that discovers this is complete fake. https://telegra.ph/Situaciya-v-Buche-CHto-bylo-na-samo-dele-04-03

In one word - Propaganda. Loesorion (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A short timeline from https://t.me/mnogonazi/7837 1) Russian MD announces full withdrawal from Bucha at march 30 2) The mayor of Bucha records a vid (see the link above) in march 31 stating there are no russian troops in the town. No bodies in this vid. None mentioned. 3) Notorious neo-nazi "the Boatsman" records a vid in Bucha at april 1-2. No bodies in this vid. None mentioned. 4) Famous ukrainian politician and former wrestler Zhan Beleniuk also records a vid about the same time. Again, no traces of bodies on the streets. 5) SUDDENLY an avalanche of "massacre" vids at april 3 in an orchestrated propaganda campaign. And i'm not even talking about all the suspicious moments in these vids.

BTW why Bucha, why not Hostomel, or Irpin, or some other town russians left? I will tell you why. Just because "Bucha" sounds similar to the english "Butcher". 95.32.198.75 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the Russians were really thinking of the English pronunciation of place names when they were considering whether or not to commit genocide against Ukrainians from town to town. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know what where Russians thinking but what where Ukrainians thinking with dragging dead on streets? And white ribbon suggesting on what side dead man was? I do not care for name of place but I do care for that dead man and amount of propaganda used - Ghost of Kiev, 13 "dead heroes" from Snake Island proving all to be alive and well and so on? Loesorion (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It just another wagging the dog. Remember this post when things get worse. 46.187.84.238 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Telegram (including telegra.ph) is a self-published source, and cannot be used in the article. Wikipedia articles are required to be based on reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * uh yuh, Wiki is pretty ancient in terms of its policy. only press is allowed here, the mindset of people from 20th century 91.193.179.71 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources for Wikipedia's standards. Reliable book and academic sources are also accepted, among others. Telegram posts are not subject to editorial oversight, which is why they are considered generally unreliable. —  Newslinger  talk   18:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not a forum Also every post above violates WP:NOTAFORUM, apart from the comment by Newslinger. Personal and uninformed speculation has no place here. Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Timing of the liberation of Bucha and of the first appearance of war crimes videos
Here is the proof that - against claims made by Russian officials - evidence for war crimes appeared almost immediately on the Internet after Bucha had been liberated: the official confirmation of Bucha's liberation by the AFU on the part of the mayor was released in the evening of April 1, the first time that I was able to find the mayor's statement published on Twitter was April 1, 18:54 PM Ukraine time (GMT+3) [link: https://twitter.com/ua_ridna_vilna/status/1509922162584526870?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w]. The two "infamous" clip of corpses lying on the roadside were, as far as I can see, first published on Twitter on April 1, 20:38 and April 1, 21:56 Ukraine time (links: https://twitter.com/__mr_M_/status/1509948421666443269?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w and https://twitter.com/GigaUra/status/1509966906018701318?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w ). Could someone of you please add this information to the article? 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:BC42:2FD3:D203:7AC8 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the mayor vid appeared on ukraininan TV at april 1, BUT in the vid itself he clearly says march 31 (bereznya) and also does not mention anything horrible nor looks concerned. 95.32.198.75 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is video from National Police of Ukraine from April 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7yIyNBMpQY
 * There are no dead bodies in the video. No people on the video are heartbroken by the "massacre". Why? Maybe because the performance has not been staged yet? FrozenWalrus (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Why?" Because on the video they move down the Shevchenko Street from the east to the center of the city. The street with corpses is Yablunska Street, which located in the south of the city. Fraunhofer UA (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Also the Ukrainian National Police released this vid at april 2 in their official verified facebook page - again, no bodies shown nor mentioned!

https://www.facebook.com/UA.National.Police/videos/931477950850433/ and in case it will be deleted, it is saved here: https://t.me/sashakots/30778 (russian journalist channel) 95.32.198.75 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or what you are arguing should be done in regards to this article. Those links don't discredit the extensive other reporting. Ukrainian police not showing dead people in their video could be an editorial position to respect the dead for example. It's not indicative of anything. ThirdDolphin (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. They would show Russian FrozenWalrus (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. They would show Russian crimes as soon as possible. But staging the crime takes time for sure. FrozenWalrus (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Original research, including synthesis, is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Please present reliable secondary sources that support your claim. —  Newslinger  talk   07:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No logical basis for the claim that the attacks were false flagged or faked.


 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:42, 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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bucha Massacre 2.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022
This is fake, staged footage. 'Corpses' move hands, get up. Check footage. 142.184.100.138 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unclear to me as well. This article goes through several of the 'it was staged' claims, e.g. the moving hand one turns out to be a water droplet moving across the windshield. Bother to share a source where corpses get up and move? Andreas Mastronikolis (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?
, added a tag suggesting that there is an unresolved NPOV dispute. Please explain the dispute and what is preventing a resolution using ordinary editing, edit summaries and talk page discussions. If there is no dispute, then the tag should be removed. Boud (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Curbon7 but I do think there is an NPOV issue. Explaining each war crime, including trivial ones that don't really progress the article, in embellished and extensive detail feels like a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Just a few hours ago I had to remove statements in the article asserting that the incident was actually a genocide, although the only people saying such so far are politicians and not scholars. Another issue was the apparent exaggeration of minor details from the Human Rights Watch article (e.g., a passing mention of sniping is portrayed as Russian snipers engaging in regular machine-gunnings of civilians in the streets). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholar Timothy Snyder has stated that Putin’s statements justifying the war and motivations are genocidal. The Russian bombing of Ukrainian civilians, the denial of necessities of life, the attacks on humanitarian convoys, the forced deportations and filtration camp, and the arbitrary murder and rape will all be linked to this, so please don’t just arbitrarily delete mentions of genocide. —Michael Z. 14:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links mention Bucha once. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Michael Z, I can understand that for someone pro-russian opinions in this situations are unacceptable, but when trying to make a Wikipedia page, it has to be as unbiased as possible. just because one side claims other side's position "genocidal" doesn't mean that side should be ignore SwampKryakwa (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

HRW confirms Russia has committed war crimes in Bucha
As Human Rights Watch reports that undeniable war crimes have been committed by the Russian military in Bucha, the claims made by some on this talk page that there's no outside report of war crimes has become moot. Similarly, the lede cannot say "reportedly" as per MOS:DOUBT. Russia committed war crimes in Bucha, that is the NPOV position based on all reliable sources we have. Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, see the RFC on the lede above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * HRW neutrality is questionable. Also even they claimed only two cases of summary executions of seven men in total and only one of them in Bucha:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/03/ukraine-apparent-war-crimes-russia-controlled-areas So not THIS "massacre" 95.32.198.75 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would HRW neutrality be "questionable"? They denounce crimes on both sides.-Karma1998 (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is true, they have repeatedly criticized the abuse and torture of Russian POWs by Ukrainian forces. HRW has been criticized multiple times (including for good reasons), but overall it is (generally) considered an authoritative source when coming to human rights abuses. I also can't think of any bias they would hold when it comes to the Ukrainian conflict in particular. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Check this page to see why and how much they are questionable:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch
 * It is extensive and with many elements.
 * "Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."
 * "According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others." The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. "
 * "In May 2014 an open letter was published criticising Human Rights Watch for what were described as its close ties to the government of the United States. The letter was signed by Nobel Peace Laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Corrigan, former UN Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard A. Falk, and over 100 scholars and cultural figures."
 * And so on. Exolind (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Any major human rights organisation that is not being criticised is probably not doing its job properly. How many governments are willing to accept claims that they are responsible for human rights violations rather than try to "blame the messenger"? Even the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission is criticised from both sides. Of course, almost any big organisations will in general have problems for which they should be criticised. And Western mainstream media generally follows the propaganda model, based on quantitative evidence; and media in the more authoritarian countries (Western or not) generally is unreliable in much more obvious ways.But if we exclude all sources that are subject to known biases and criticisms, then we'll have no sources left.HRW and Amnesty International generally are reliable for the reports they make. We can to some degree bypass their biases and omissions by using a variety of sources. Same goes for other sources. Boud (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BIAS policy says you don't have to exclude reporting that is biased (on the rough assumption that everything is biased, at least to a degree)."However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view" You do need to make sure that reporting from both sides is included, in the context of balanced writing. So we can definitely use HRW as a source. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Ukrainian forces entered the town on 1 April" (wrong date)
Bucha's mayor said that Bucha was liberated by Ukrainian army at March, 31. So, please correct the date.

Src: https://t.me/uniannet/43423

92.101.176.193 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Bucha's mayor issued this announcement only in the evening of April 1 (his video was first posted on social media just before 19:00 Ukraine time, https://twitter.com/ua_ridna_vilna/status/1509922162584526870?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w) and he referred to the liberation of Bucha as having happened on March 31, Ukrainian troops did not enter the city on this day, though. 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:421C:83FF:FEE0:C0CC (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * How could Ukrainian troops liberate Bucha on March 31 without entering it? The mayor said that Bucha was liberated by Ukrainian army. 92.101.176.193 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian forces left Bucha on either March 31 (as claimed by the Ukrainian mayor, so it was liberated then in his view) or they were still there on April 1 (as claimed by the Russian Ministry of Defense). But in any case, Ukrainian troops only entered the town on April 1. Likewise, the mayor made his announcement on April 1, at around 18:45 Ukraine time. 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:421C:83FF:FEE0:C0CC (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * > on April 1 (as claimed by the Russian Ministry of Defense).
 * Russian Ministry of Defense claims that Russian army left Bucha on March 30 (https://news.sky.com/story/war-in-ukraine-russians-pull-out-of-bucha-leaving-civilians-lying-dead-on-the-streets-12581143). 92.101.176.193 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Initially, on April 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense (according to Interfax) claimed Russia was still successfully defending Bucha: https://web.archive.org/web/20220401071659/https://www.interfax.ru/world/832562.
 * Interestingly, the Russian MOD later (on April 3), changed its version. You only refer to the later statement, not to the earlier one.
 * In addition, there are two other sources claiming that Russian troops did not leave the town before April 1 (in the afternoon):
 * 1) Bucha City Council Secretary Taras Shapravskiy on April 1 (published 11:34 AM Ukraine time), source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/04/1/7336277/
 * 2) The Institute for the Study of War on April 1 19:00 ET (April 2, 01:00 Ukraine time) claimed that Russian troops withdrew from Bucha on "March 31 - April 1", source: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-1 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:E90D:8D18:603A:FFFB (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unconfirmed" should be added
There's not enough evidence yet to really know what happened there. Pipukandrey (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we have video evidence, photography by various news agencies, reports from the Ukrainian government and eyewitness accounts given to reputable news agencies and then published in their titles. What other sort of evidence did you want? If you want Putin to admit it, I don't think that;s going to happen. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ukrainian sources has proven themselves questionable after posting fakes multiple times lately. Also, almost all sources on page are biased towards pro-Ukrainian side. Without further investigations and more claims from both sides, we can't say that everything is confirmed 91.193.177.154 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to Ukrainian sources, Associated Press, Reuters, France 24, BBC, HRW - lots of sources have reported it, and they have journalists on site as witnesses. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of reports in multiple newspapers around the world, as well as statements from third party NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. The Russian war crimes are well confirmed. And no, sources here are not biased, any more than sources about WWII are biased. Describing the actions of the armies of Hitler/Putin is of course negative. That's not because of bias but because of their own actions. Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was already mentioned that HRW is a questionable source 91.193.177.154 (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Replaced it with Associated Press, happy? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why replace it, Deathlibrarian? There is nothing wrong with HRW. A spa IP disliking what HRW says does in no way disqualify it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did it to make a point that even with the HRW out, there are plenty of other accounts of the attrocities. Taking one out does nothing - and he had no answer to that! In any case, I'll put it back in.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Photo" for "photograph"
The article should be corrected to say "photograph" instead of "photo." Using vocabulary like "gonna" isn't upon encyclopedic articles just yet. 85.240.221.174 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah... no. Photo is at this point standard enough that it's fine. Consider the following n-grams:
 * [photo vs. photograph]-- photo is far more common
 * [gonna vs going to]-- gonna is far less common in written form. Biktor627 (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The first social media report of the massacre was on the 1st of April, not 2nd
This is important because massacre denial often uses a timeline gap to claim it didn't happen. Example of a 1st of April report of the massacre: https://t.me/irpin_b_politik/1945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.8 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel like this needs to be highlighted more. I have seen a lot of people believing that the first photos were released on April the 2nd (e.g. see "Timeline of the events" above), but this does not seem to be the case. There are several reports of this on both twitter and telegram channels. I honestly do not understand the objection that these sources should not be used (as mentioned on other discussions here). If the objective is to prove the time-order, why shouldn't we include those as legitimate proof? Andreas Mastronikolis (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Bellingcat counts as a RS, this could be quoted: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/04/russias-bucha-facts-versus-the-evidence/
 * "Videos and photographs from Bucha, showing deceased individuals in civilian clothes, first appeared on social media channels on April 1." 212.187.165.227 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ in Special:Diff/1081031322. Thank you for including a reliable source with your suggestion. —  Newslinger  talk   22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. Andreas Mastronikolis (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: (de-facto SNOW close) Not moved For the bot - if you remove the banner, you need to close the discussion too RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Bucha massacre → War crimes in Bucha during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – A clunky re-titling I must admit, but I feel it corresponds to Wikipedia practise (e.g. War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). While what happened was IMHO undoubtedly a massacre, there doesn't seem to be consensus among English-language reliable sources that "Bucha massacre" is the common name for what happened. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support yes I think that's a good idea. But only so long as "Bucha massacre" is carefully included in the article opening (or "section opening" if it becomes a section, due to other war crimes then discovered in the area).


 * For example: "...also known as the Bucha Massacre". (Or "also known as the massacre of Bucha"). Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The current title seems consistent with e.g. Srebrenica massacre; no need to make the title more clunky; not backed up by WP:RS on the common name of the event. --Mindaur (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies. The Guardian CBS News Bloomberg Politico The Washington Post Haaretz Fox News Global News The Moscow Times Taiwan News Yahoo News New Statesman Daily Post Nigeria France24 MSNBC Alarabiya Euromaidan Press The Jerusalem Post Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose As demonstrated above by Dunutubble, there are more than sufficient sources calling it "Bucha massacre".--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support A massacre is a single event, or chain of events linked by an intent to carry out these events. In this case, there is as of yet no prove that the single events were connected in this way, i.e. the motivations and the triggers for the events were different. Therefore, the article, as of now, is actually a collection of articles on war crimes and alleged war crimes in Bucha. In due course, it is likely that some description will emerge in reliable sources. It will be important to look at the entirety of reporting by reliable sources (both English and non-English) on the events in Bucha, not just on those reliable sources that use the most catchy phrase to describe them. At this moment, some sources use "Bucha massacre" as their own term, some use it in quotation marks (thus not owning the term), some don't use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs32en (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support Agreed that this renaming is more in line with other similar articles in Wikipedia, but the term "Bucha massacre" has also been widely used in reliable sources, so it should be prominently featured in the lede and there should be a redirect from Bucha massacre to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisanthusjohn (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It would be a war crime when a competent and indpenedent court finds so. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongesg policy based oppose The only body that can determine if this was a war xrime is the ICC, and they aren't going to have an answer for a while. A massacre did happen- citizens were executed in a manner far worse than casualties of war, but it is 100% wrong by policy to be calling these war crimes in wikivoice. This article's text is already out of compliance with policy in that way, and the proposed title would make it worse. --M asem (t) 17:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I respectfully but strongly disagree. It is very important that "We the people" and also "Any democratic government" can also decide that something is a war crime. We the people don't have to wait 15 years for the slow machinations of the ICC or other such bodies to reach the conclusion that something is a war crime.


 * Oppose. Malikxan  talk 17:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Conditional Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and others above. Conditional because similar incidents may be uncovered and may need to be merged into a single article. Paris1127 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose KajMetz (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME already being used, as well as the extreme verbosity of the proposal. BirdValiant (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose — too soon ☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 18:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per common name. But do create redirect(s). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per coommon name. The proposed article's namer is OR. As can be shown easily by google for the exact War crimes in Bucha during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which delivers atm exactly two results – this talk page and the template on the front. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous and also per WP:CONCISE: the proposed title is the exact kind of verbose invention that should be avoided; especially if it includes the strong claim that these are "war crimes" (which they probably are, but we as an encyclopedia have no need to jump the gun on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title satisfies all five WP:CRITERIA as well or better. —Michael Z. 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the proposed title seems to be verified by legal bodies. Egeymi (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Until there is a WP:RS backing up an official name it should be named what most English speakers are calling it. WP:COMMONNAME The Impartial Truth (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the banner as disruptive. This has no chance of ever reaching consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful of the wording in this article
I'd recommend putting "alleged" in front of statements that can be interpereted as fact. There have been no outside int'l organizations or media sources that have definitively reported that there has been confirmed war crimes or a massacre of any kind. Reuters and the independent media I've looked through are all employing cautious wording "Ukraine alleges..." etc. due to the nature of the developing and uncertain cituation. It could very well be an instance of atrocity propaganda - Ukrainian Ministry of Defense also hasn't been the most reliable source of information or accusation (see Snake Island.) Capery200 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not done: This is personal speculation. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources referring to this as a massacre/attrocity.The only people that are challenging saying it is fake are Russian state sources... and we know how reliable they are. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * How much of sources have proved themselves to not be biased towards pro-Ukrainian side? Please keep in mind that all we actually do have so far are few opinions on topics, based on random witnesses. To say about certainty of someone being responsible for action, we do need to at least wait for some investigation results, better to be from generally unbiaced sources (which Ukrainian government can't be considered in the situation for example). Unless we have anything like that, it it better to state "allegedly" SwampKryakwa (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * News sources from India, Al Jazeera, France, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Israel have called it as massacres or killings. Based on multiple WP:RS it is very clear that a massacre had happened. I am going out of tangent here, but video evidence did exist for these crimes. SunDawn  talk  00:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Bellingcat as a source showing no falsification of the videos from Bucha
Bellingcat looked into Russian claims of fakery as well and throughly debunked their 'evidence'. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/04/russias-bucha-facts-versus-the-evidence/ 2600:387:C:6B16:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It's been done. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source
Please don't misrepresent sources as you did in here (your edit summary is misleading as well). There's absolutely nothing in the source about "both" Russia and Ukraine asking for an investigation from the ICC.  Volunteer Marek  23:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022
Hello. I think the author indicated incorrectly that those were ‘possible crimes committed by Russia”. Russia did it. Possible is not the word for this sentence. 31.43.183.200 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 (2)

 * Not done — It's unclear what changes you want to make. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've inserted some information about the Russian units involved in the occupation, and the commanders name, but it would not be wikipedia policy to include a long list of names like this. I've included the pravda link as a reference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the events
Since many people have questioned the timeline of the events, I'll try to write it schematically here:


 * 31 March - Russian forces leave Bucha;
 * 1 April - Ukrainian forces retake Bucha;
 * 2 April - First photos of the massacre appear on social media and traditional media;
 * 3 April - The massacre is revealed;

I honestly cannot see anything "suspicious" about the timeline. Even in our hyper-connected world, 1-2 days are a reasonable timeline, especially in war times. And I honestly don't think the Ukrainians would be able to pull up such a sofisticated charade in only 1 day, that seems extremely implausible.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. I've two sources in Russian telling what Russian military was doing at the Bucha on March 31 and April 1, 2022. Checkout: . Jsut to reconstruct timeline of events and find inconsitencies. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 23:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian state-owned media cannot be considered reliable for obvious reasons. Zvezda, in particular, is well-known for his unreliability.-Karma1998 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus on that Zvezda is in particular generally unreliable? It still can be used in proper WP:RSCONTEXT. On the other side I don't insist on using such sources in the article. They just can be used to track or get certain information. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 23:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They can be used to represent the official stance taken by the Russian Ministry of Defence. See WP:RSCONTEXT. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another two interfax sources that one may find interesting :
 * - Ministry of Defense claims that civilians "were allowed to flee toward North and Belarus" and that nobody "was harmed while Buchan was under control of Russian forces".
 * - On April 1 a commander of navy troop named Alexey Shabulin (Алексей Шабулин) told that Russian navy infantry were "clearing" and "reconning" nearby villages with a purpose to establish permanent presense.
 * AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I'd also like to add that the massacre has been denounced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which are impartial and unbiased NGOs.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The earliest social media reports were actually on the 1st of April. Here's an example: https://t.me/irpin_b_politik/1945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.8 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is even much more damning for those accusing the Ukrainians of staging the event: the first photos/videos appear already on April 1 (!) and not on April 2 on social media (see the timestamps of these tweets: https://twitter.com/__mr_M_/status/1509948421666443269?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w and https://twitter.com/GigaUra/status/1509966906018701318?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w ), less than two hours after Bucha's mayor had announced the liberation of the town (https://twitter.com/ua_ridna_vilna/status/1509922162584526870?s=20&t=VlmgsAJs8SlxqcyEz2_S2w 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:421C:83FF:FEE0:C0CC (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Twitter is not relible unless you are using it to prove words of profile owners. Try to find out article in general medias. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 23:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But the article says that footage of the event was posted on social media (!) first on April 2. Now, we see there is evidence that footage appeared on social media already on April 1. This means, we do indeed "prove the words of profile owners" here, those "words" appeared first on April 1 (20:38 GMT+3, 17:38 UTC) and not on April 2. 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:421C:83FF:FEE0:C0CC (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SOCIALMEDIA. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 23:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be possible to use such a "questionable source" in such a way in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines which you cited: "Initial video footage claiming to show what was left behind in Bucha following the Russian withdrawal, posted to social media on Saturday, 1 April, [insert here the Twitter links posted above] showed mass civilian casualties." 2A00:7C40:C200:34B:421C:83FF:FEE0:C0CC (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for a verified report or an article. Be wary of war propaganda. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How can war propaganda be related here in any way? I am well aware of the fact that twitter or telegram are not reliable sources and I believe this is generally great policy, but if the objective is to get the timing of events straight, shouldn't we use the earliest video posted on the web, as a legitimate source, regardless of where it came from?  Andreas Mastronikolis (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The verifiability policy states, "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." On Wikipedia, ensuring that article content is verifiable takes precedence over including unverifiable claims. —  Newslinger  talk   21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair game @Newslinger, thanks for letting me know! Andreas Mastronikolis (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with propaganda war
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)
 * Leaving aside the blatant ad hominems, the unsubstantiated whataboutism, the strange abuse of WP policies, and the other various false equivalences, the big issue is that the entire premise of this supposed argument, the "NATO sources", don't actually exist. Those are dozens of independent news organizations that have nothing to do with NATO or Western governments— They are not financially funded by NATO or its constituent governments, they are not organizationally controlled by NATO or its constituent governments, and even if NATO or its constituent governments wished to silence them or dictate what they publish, they would be protected by the law in the countries where they are based. So when you seemingly refer to the concept of independent media as "NATO sources", and suggest that opposing voices might be more credible, it comes across as being done in bad faith. If you can provide some specific examples of "non-aligned" sources that aren't state media and don't have a documented history of poor credibility, then you might be worth listening to. If not, then this certainly seem like little more than an attempt to sow confusion by engaging in denial of war crimes. Intralexical (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Intralexical Leaving besides blatant ad hominems requires not engaging in them and complying with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. No one is engaging in war crimes denial. Questions remain on who committed this specific war crime, particularly considering awfully violent repression against Ukrainian civilians by Azov and other such far right groups incorporated in the armed forces are so widespread. Such questions are not posed by media within the NATO jursidiction except a posteriori as an attempt to justify what is widely shared on alternative channels. Steps have been implemented to shut down narratives deemed "pro-Russian" which are widespread or mainstream outside these jurisdictions. This is a fact of the world we now live in. If Wikipedia wishes to remain relevant in the modern world, it cannot censor investigation and reporting carried out outside what constitutes 20% of the world. Whether we like it or not, the unipolar world we grew up in is crumbling. --JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * AGF: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary […]". Pointing out things you have said is not an attack. Anyway: You haven't actually brought any of those fabled sources "from non-aligned countries" you keep mentioning, despite going on repeated, generally unsubstantiated or irrelevant tirades against Ukraine and the West. That's literally all you have to do: Post a single link (and preferably a handful more) to the "reliable sources by media groups uninvolved in the conflict" you keep mentioning. As you haven't done that, it certainly appears more and more that you don't actually have any such sources, and are more interested in whining about images on other users' talk pages and perceived "bias".
 * If you actually had anything constructive to add, and any RS to cite, you would be adding them to the article, not ranting on the talk page.
 * Intralexical (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @JoseLuisMoralesMarcos
 * You can find a non-exhaustive list of sources together with Wikipedia's stance on them here: WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. If you disagree with the status of some of them, or you believe there are other ones that should be more extensively considered, I think that's the place to discuss it. Examples of non "NATO-based" high-rated sources are: Al Jazeera, The Australian, The Hindu, The Indian Express, SCMP...
 * If you have specific suggestions for sourcing or editing the contents of this article, you should make them directly instead of arguing general points. If you believe that Wikipedia should diverge from its WP:RS policy for this article specifically, I think that's impossible. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ObsidianPotato (talk) 20:30, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk • contribs)


 * I see RandomCanadian’s point. There is zero suspense about the security council meeting. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Elinruby the fact that you have just written off India, the largest democracy in the world, holding around 18% of the world´s population as "pro-Russian" kind of reinforces my point about WP:BIAS. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * RandomCanadian 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)
 * The flag on my user page is a wish for peace. You are engaging in clear and unambiguous trolling. I'm done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because he has a country's flag on his userpage doesn't prove him wrong.
 * And as for providing "balance" to articles, there is also a rule not to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretending that the Indian government (which still condemned the massacre) does not have its own reasons for tip-toeing around a situation is silly. Neither does the fact a country denies an event make it correct; one of the most well-known examples is when countries engage in genocide denial, e.g. Pakistan denying the Bangladesh genocide and Turkey denying the Armenian one despite an overwhelming consensus that these events happened. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes well, its good that you warn me about WP:NPA Dunutubble just after being called Nazi. Thanks for that. But yes this reinterpretation of WP:FRINGE as basically meaning sources from outside involved NATO countries, is a matter which I thought worth examining.


 * I note you too consider non western countries - all of their media as if they were monoliths - inherently tainted with bias yet western countries (who of course have never engaged in genocide, God forbid), as the source of truth and goodness. With every comment you guys make you literally reinforce my point more and more of WP:BIAS. Anyways, I have no more time for this today. I hope other editors chip into this debate. I feel this article is currently hostage to activist editors. Then again I may be wrong. Cheers.JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did I say Western countries didn't commit genocide? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Balance in this Article
Should the respective positions of the parties to this conflict (NATO, Russia) as well as non-aligned parties on who is responsible for the massacre be incorporated in this article? Not doing so seems like a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS and WP:BALANCE? The current state of this article is, in my humble opinion, at best alarming. Is there any rationale for not doing so? I consider WP:FRINGE doesn´t apply in this case since information on the incident is scarce beyond what is fed to partisan media by the Ukrainian government, the latter which evidently is not a reliable source. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The previous discussion got archived because it's unclear what you're asking for. Please make specific suggestions on how to improve the article and quote reliable sources. There are plenty that aren't based in any NATO country, you can find them on this list, e.g. Al Jazeera, The Australian, The Hindu, The Indian Express, SCMP. ObsidianPotato (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This event happened during an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, according to the overwhelming majority of sources. NATO is not a party to the invasion nor to the resistance to the invasion, even though many NATO member countries are supporting the resistance to the invasion; some (like Hungary) are not supporting the resistance to the invasion. We have multiple sources that are generally considered reliable, including mainstream media with people physically in place and interviewing local residents.If you have a specific edit to propose, or a specific source to propose, please make that proposal. We're not going to get into an abstract debate about Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this talk page. Boud (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My specific edit proposal is that the positions of all sides to the conflict (NATO is providing weapons to one side therefore is a party to the conflict) on the Bucha massacre and who is likely responsible should be incorporated in the article, ideally with both primary and secondary sources. WP:FRINGE does not apply when we have no idea what happened. Not you, not I and certainly not the New York Times which spent 2 years denying the Hunter Biden laptop was real. We can use the Fringe argument when we have an independent investigation by a neutral party. Currently we do not and we cannot state responsibility in wikivoice. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @JoseLuisMoralesMarcos has just been blocked for three months indefinitely. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

— JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * JoseLuisMoralesMarcos, the short answer is "no". If you wonder why, read WP:NONAZIS. We are not even trying to create "balance" between facts and propaganda by aggressive nationalists. Jeppiz (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * JoseLuisMoralesMarcosThe policy you need to look at here is WP:NPOV and WP:BAL. These policies state that all prevailing views should be represented in an article. However, 99% of the sources state that the Russians perpetrated this massacre. The only sources that state otherwise are Russian state media... as there is no longer any independent media in Russia. That is not a mainstream view. Its mentioned in the article, but its not given any significant weight (see WP:weight) because its not seen as a mainstream view. I hope that helps. The view that the Ukrainians killed their own people AND somehow put all the bodies there while the Russians were in control of the town (as satellite pics show they were there at that time)...and for some reason the Russians didn't notice has been debunked, and quite obviously implausible.. as such its a fringe view.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:44, 6 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 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 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)

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)

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)

Russian claims
Re 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)

External video
May I know why did you remove the video I added? 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)

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


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

High quality images
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 

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)

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. 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. Bit lacking on the detail front! Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:16, 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)

Reactions, expulsion of diplomats
It has been reported that Russian diplomats have been expelled from various countries following the massacre. 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)

RfC on lead
pol Should the lede be reformed, and if so, how? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. AXO NOV  (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)

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)

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) Deprecated sources and 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


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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". 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)

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)