Talk:Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan

POV flyby tag
Please explain the WP:NPOV dispute. If there is no dispute, then the NPOV tag should be removed. Boud (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Several source, for example this one are badly misrepresented.  Volunteer Marek   09:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the template WP:NPOVD was added on 9 May but the discussion hasn't yet started. I don't see any apparent problem with the source - am I missing something? I was about to remove the template but I'd like to check first if there's consensus or if there's something that needs discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this page is ripe for an AfD (although I am not certain, maybe wait for another month and see if something else will be published?). This is all about single video that might be fake. I am not saying it was fake. Maybe it was not, who knows? But this is the point: no one knows. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes - This page should be AfD now, not next month. Potential war propaganda misinformation (utilized by both sides of the conflict, by the way) has no place in Wikipedia. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Le Monde wrote: "L’analyse, par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants, d’une vidéo censée montrer des soldats ukrainiens tirant sur des prisonniers russes, confirme son authenticité." [The analysis, by "Le Monde" and independent investigators, of a video supposed to show Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian prisoners, confirms its authenticity]. One of the independent investigators mentioned in the article published this. But you're right to the effect that this should be said more clearly in the lead, otherwise readers might still think that the video (which has already been verified by an independent reliable source) is a piece of war propaganda misinformation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe "fake" is incorrect word. Yes, it has been geolocated and probably not outright fabricated (I say "probably" after looking videos of certain celebrities that were fabricated using AI technologies). The question is what exactly had happen out there. Then, there is a question if the video (or the alleged incident on the video) are notable enough to deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (note) - I’ve never said anything about what suppose to be in the lead. I wrote that this article should be deleted (AfD-ed) because the incident is possible (most likely) false flag war propaganda. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the only way it is fake is if there is a Hollywood-level or better manipulation at stake. Without any evidence that such a thing might be going on, and there is none, there is no cause to remove this article. And I think its NPOV has been fixed from earlier problems. Hipponoticed (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors can always nominate this article for delation if they have notability or verifiability concerns. This, however, doesn't relate with the topic of this thread: WP:NPOVD. The point of having that tag at the top of the article is starting a discussion. After 3 weeks, it's time to WP:DETAG. As editor without a conflict of interest who does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, I'm removing the tag. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is actually an issue here. Yes, to be sure, there are bodies of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan, and they were killed. At least 12 bodies in the village . But how and by whom they were killed? Accoring to most recent RS, "At least one of the two had their hands tied, a sign, Ivannikov said, that they may have been punished as deserters [by Russians]. Reuters was unable to verify the circumstances of any of the deaths." My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick search finds this much earlier source: . A friendly fire? My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first casualty of War is Truth. I’ll repeat, in my humble opinion this article should be nominated for deletion. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not object. I understand that the original video was removed by YouTube and is not currently available? There are other videos about dead bodies on that location . The entire territory previously occupied by Russian forces is a graveyard. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Title
Something less verbose could do? Like Mala Rohan kneecappings or Mala Rohan kneecapping incident? --31.158.143.222 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "Intentional shootings" or "Kneecapping" would be better, just because it's a lot more precise. Hipponoticed (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Le Monde source mistranslated
AGF two different versions of the story were published, and the what the source was reported to say is from an earlier version. Nonetheless the version the link goes to is damning and leaves little doubt. (And I had hoped the video was indeed a fake) Note that Le Monde is a world-class newspaper with a reputation as good as or better than the New York Times or the Times of London. If they say a thing is so then it is. The article says: "Les images repérées par l’analyste indépendant Erich Auerbach, et croisées par Le Monde à d’autres documents disponibles en ligne, prouvent que des volontaires du bataillon ukrainien Slobozhanshchyna se trouvaient sur les lieux quand les prisonniers russes ont été torturés. S’il n’est pas pas ossible d’affirmer avec certitude que l’individu auteur du tir est directement issu de leurs rangs, le leader du groupe, Andri Ianholenko, apparaît clairement aux côtés des trois victimes, avant les coups de feu. Sollicité par Le Monde, Andri Ianholenko n’a pas répondu." This translates as: "The images discovered by the independent analyst Erich Auerbach, and cross-referenced by Le Monde to other documents available online, prove that volunteers of the Ukrainian Slobozhanshchyna batallion were on site when the Russian prisoners were tortured. Although it isn't possible to affirm with certainty that the individual who pulled the trigger came directly from their ranks, the leader of the group, Andri Ianholenko, clearly appears at the side of the three victims before the gunshots. Queried by Le Monde, Andri Ianholenko did not reply."

I have amended the the text of article to reflect the source. Nothing there about taking them into custody a kilometer away. AGF, as I said, that was in a different article with an earlier version, and the person who wrote this did not speak French. But if we believe Le Monde -- and we should -- there is no doubt. I still don't understand the person speaking Russian without an accent on a walkie-talkie though, but that isn't mentioned in this source and this source is what I am correcting Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The frame where Yangolenko clearly appears with the prisoners is not the dairy plant; the video says it is the street the dairy is on and calls it "about 765 yards" away and there's a graphic that says "700 mètres" Hipponoticed (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. That is where that comes from. The antiquated device I am on at the moment does not play video. Nonetheless, the source does not say that. It says that its investigation *proves* they were present (sur les lieux) although I grant you that it does not specifiy which lieux. It does say when they were tortured though... I have no objection to additional sources fleshing this out to talk about what happened a kilometer up the road, mind you. I would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, but if a Ukrainian unit went rogue and tortured prisoners, then a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. If you suspect a deepfake or something, I would support you in looking for additional sources. I still don't understand the Russian speaker with no Ukrainian accent, although I am not in a position to verify that. But the text before the citation to Le Monde should summarize what Le Monde said. Elinruby (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * (much later, on another device) I apologize to, who was quite correct. The video embedded in the article does use video posted to social media by the unit commander to substantiate that the unit was in the area and took custody of the men who were later shot. It does not however say that they were shot by members of the unit accused of shooting them, and the lede as it sits misrepresents the source. The video does discuss some reasons to think so but specifically says that the publication could not definitely substantiate the allegation. More on this later, but taking a moment in the middle of something else to both correct myself and note the issue with the lede. More on this later. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor quibble though; one of ’s edit summaries says that this is confirmed, just not that it is that specific unit. This is exactly wrong; they specifically say that they are not confirming it, and when they say authenticate they mean that a sergeant of a Ukrainian unit that had military control of the area was posting on Facebook very nearby. For those who don’t know this, the Russians have been running false flags against the Ukrainians since 2014, as the IP you keep reverting is trying to tell you. That does not make this video fake, mind you, but Le Monde is saying that “vraisemblablement” - seemingly - the men on the ground are Russian prisoners, and their captors are Ukrainian, and go through their reasons for this assessment. On the other hand, this video circulated on Russian propaganda sites, they specifically say, and they are unable to vouch for the accuracy of this seeming-ness ;)

I have posted a decent summary of the video elsewhere, but you do not need me to tell you that; the video has English subtitles. I have quibbles with it — I would have said the sky was overcast, not covered, for example — but they are not substantive. I would call it a good en-5 translation by a native French speaker. So turn them on. And self-revert the erroneous lede, please, whoever did that Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

p.s. - personally, based on this source, I find it “vraisemblable” that the unit sargeant mentioned would do something like this. He sounds like a piece of work and his brother had just died in the shelling of Kharkiv. But other sources differ somewhat on some of the details, and I have not examined them. Elinruby (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, what is "erroneous" in the lead section? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

“Vérifier” does not mean “vouch for” in French. They specifically say that they cannot determine the identity of the soldiers. Watch the embedded video and turn on subtitles if your spoken French isn’t good. Elinruby (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Where do you read "vouch for" in the leas section? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * you need a diff here too? “Vérifier” means to check, not to “verify”, which in English means “found to be true”. There is a lot of nuance, detail and equivocation in the source, which you cite to back up statements it specifically disowns. Seems like I keep saying it...maybe because I do. Elinruby (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, we're not talking about À la recherche du temps perdu here, we're taking about an article by Le Monde about POWs shot in the legs - I think we can renounce a bit of "nuance, detail and equivocation". If you think that "verify" is not accurate because it implies something about the nationality of the perpetrators, why don't you simply replace it with "check"? On 13 May the French newspaper Le Monde and independent analysts verified checked the video and confirmed its authenticity. The point is that they verified/checked the video and concluded that it was not a fabrication. I never implied anything different as this diff clearly shows: "video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners" is a cautious but accurate and preferable description of the event. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

They didn’t though. Le Monde absolutely did not confirm its authenticity. They “authenticated” it, which is a term of art — ask any information security professional —that refers, I believe, to the social media posts of the unit sargeant. They were in the area and the events portrayed by the video are plausible, Le Monde says, but they absolutely do not “confirm its authenticity”. Please realize that I am a native French speaker by the legal definitions of my country (something else I have said before...I would have thought you would have read the ANI thread?) I didn’t change it because I was busy off-wiki, as I told you, and AGF I figured you would correct it since the matter was raised at ANI and all. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * From futher up the thread you are arguing in: “it isn't possible to affirm with certainty that the individual who pulled the trigger came directly from their ranks” Elinruby (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're busy, @Elinruby, I'm happy to make the edit you'd like to make but for some reason cannot make by yourself. To that end you should figure out a workable text, however, because we cannot spend hours discussing semantics. I doubt Le Monde "authenticated" the video but "absolutely did not confirm its authenticity", as you say. As an expert of legal definitions, are you suggesting they went to a notary and made an official act of authentication? Le notaire a-t-il signé la vidéo et apposé son sceau? There must be a way of saying in English, without engaging in endless conversations, that Le Monde proved that the video is not a fake (and this also applies here ) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking at auerbach’s twitter feed. He geo-locates the video but cannot definitively link the unit to the shooting. It seems clear that the unit was in the area but he specifically says that the frame where they appear was shot at a different time (this is all in English btw). All of the video he uses to “authenticate” has been edited. It is clear to me that he is saying that he feels the video shot up the road was shot by the sargeant and/or another member of the unit. You’re hanging a lot on one misunderstood word in the only source that remotely comes close to saying the video is real. This is about the fourth time I have explained this to you. Authentication is an information security concept that relates to *identity*. Only. You need to let go of your preconceptions. I am looking at all the sources I can find and not finding anything to support them. I do however note a recent story that indicates otherwise. I must respectfully decline your offer to make the edit, since you just re-inserted this error into the war crimes article. I don’t understand your need to argue French with a French speaker, but this is not semantics. *Nobody* says the video is authentic as far as I can see. Elinruby (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you open a discussion at RS/N? Or alternatively you could wait for other editors to join this thread and share their views on the subject. In the meantime, however, until a different consensus emerges, I will revert your attempts at removing the info that Le Monde authenticated the video, as I don't find your arguments convincing. The article by Le Monde looks very clear to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the discussion continues here: Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Le Monde on the tortured Russian POWs. Please post your comments there so as to have a unified discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * it isn’t an RSN question. The source is fine; you are misquoting it Elinruby (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence about Le Monde "authentifying" the video should be removed from the lead, because it's too ambiguous. Le Monde does not define what it means by "authentifier" - it could mean that it's satisfied that it's not, say a video from the Syrian or Colombian civil wars that has been edited; it could mean that it looked at the metadata and assumed that if it's faked, then at least the faker made a good effort in inserting realistic metadata, and the accents and language (I haven't watched the video, so I don't know if anyone spoke), the visible surroundings and objects all look credible for the claimed date and location, and other known information is almost all consistent.On the other hand, if we really want a phrase (English sense) from Le Monde, then probable exaction is the key expression, it seems to me. Le Monde is satisfied that this is a probable violation of the Geneva convention. I think that modifying the HRW sentence in the lead by removing the date and putting "According to ... Human Rights Watch and Le Monde ..."(both refs) would be good. While Le Monde does not literally say "if confirmed", it effectively says that by saying that it very much seems like a war crime by Ukrainian forces, and that it would be a war crime if it happened as it appears to have happened. Boud (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's not what Le Monde says. It is obvious that if the incident had happened as it appears to have happened then it would be a war crime: there's no need of investigative journalism to tell you that. We know a few things, however, as stated by the documentary of "Le Monde" :
 * where the video was shot (a farm in Mala Rohan);
 * when it was shot (the evening of 25 March);
 * the three Russian POWs were recorded on the same day, same evening, 700m apart under custody of the commander of the Ukrainian battalion Slobozhanshchyna;
 * they were detained and interrogated by men wearing the Ukrainian uniform and speaking Russian with Ukrainian accent;
 * we don't know the identity of those who pulled the trigger and we don't know for sure if they belonged to that battalion, but we know that members of Slobozhanshchyna were present at the farm.
 * So, via geolocation, analysis of the video and cross-check with other videos and images, Le Monde "authenticated" the video (Une vidéo ... que Le Monde a pu authentifier et recouper avec d’autres images), meaning that we know that the video was not staged, it's authentic, real people were really shot on that day there, and those people were the same POWs who were in custody of an Ukrainian official in Mala Rohan on the evening of the 25th. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD is for summarising the content, and possibly adding key details that are consensually acceptable as significant or typically used in leads. Le Monde does not define what it means by "authentifier". It's clear that it considers the video serious enough to be fairly unlikely to be a fake and it doesn't think that it (Le Monde) is responsible for distributing fake news. The phrasing "verified the video and confirmed its authenticity" is too strong given Le Monde's brief statement, because it contains three words about checking: (1) authenticity, (2) verified, (3) confirmed, i.e. in other words it's "very very authentic" rather than just "authentic" (but « très très authentique » wouldn't be elegant French); I don't see how it counts either as a summary sentence or key element. Also independent analysts is rather vague and weaselly for "the analyst Erich Auerbach", who died in 1957, or Erich Auerbach (photographer), who died in 1977, or some other Erich Auerbach (war crimes video authentification analyst still alive in 2022). At the moment, we don't have consensus for including a Le Monde sentence in the lead. Boud (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that
 * 1) "verified the video and confirmed its authenticity" is too strong. What I meant to say is nothing but "checked the video and authenticated it" (which I understand as synonymous of "confirmed its authenticity"). Apparently in Italian and French "verify" is almost synonymous of check: you can "verify" something and find out that it's false.
 * 2) I also agree that at the moment we don't have consensus for including that sentence in the lead because two editors (you and Elinruby) objected to this edit of mine . Possibly we don't have a consensus for including it in the body of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine either.
 * However, I also believe that
 * A) With regard to "independent journalists", that is meant to translate the subhead of the article "enquêteurs indépendants" and I don't think it's just Erich Auerbach but also Henry Schlottman (thanked in the documentary) and the unnamed "various others" mentioned by HRW.
 * B) I also think that WP:LEAD would allow us to include this in the lead, if only we had a consensus, as the point is already covered in the article and it's most relevant.
 * I strongly suggest you to watch the video documentary by "Le Monde". It takes 8 minutes, but it's very important to the present discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

it isn’t either one of those Erich Auerbachs. I link to his Twitter account and the pinned thread in the Fact Check 1 section below. I do agree that watching the Le Monde video is important; I don’t know how your spoken French is, but if you click on settings you can turn on English subtitles. They make the point that anybody can tie a cloth around his arm, but I think Le Monde is confident that the unit in question was in the area at some point (BBC and Le Monde differ on when) and is persuasive that the unit commander is capable of such a thing. However, it *is* an extrapolation. Some of the video is edited from his social media posts. There are multiple videos, all of them edited. Le Monde matches the prisoners the unit takes a km away to the men being shot... not sure I agree, but also not prepared to disagree. My issue here is that a “maybe” has become Le Monde definitely confirmed it. They do say it’s geolocated. It does seem likely that the heavy blond man is the commander of the Sloboda Ukraine unit, and this is what I think Le Monde means by “authenticated”. If some of the video is from his social media then there isn’t much doubt about his identity, and the geek in me says that authentication is a term of art meaning that identity is proven. But. Is the edited version circulated by Russian propaganda sources (per Le Monde) a truthful portrayal of events?There have been quite a number of Russian-produced fake videos, and I think we should have more than a “maybe” about the commission of a war crime, and especially not say the video is verified by Le Monde when Le Monde specifically says it can’t say with any certainty who did the shooting. Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I went looking for other sources since Gitz does not seem to want to hear me parse the French; I can understand that but I am not finding any RS that definitively says that this happened. On the other hand, Google only shows me French and English; perhaps there is an RS for this in another language. But when I went looking I found a lot of other sources that talk about dead Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan who had been shot, so I question how much weight we should be giving these burned corpses HRW is on about. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Pas de problème avec le français parlé ;). I wasn't particularly eager to allow a zillion third-party websites through uMatrix to access my web browser in order to be able to see the video provided by Le Monde/lemde.fr/googleapis.com/dailymotion.com/dmcdn.net/amplitude.com/dmleonyc.com/dmxleo.com/ (and provide plenty of my private data as raw material for them to sell to advertisers). At least for twitter there are nitter front ends and for youtube there are invidious front ends, and of course PeerTube is where people in the free world distribute videos in a more respectful, decentralised way allowing community development. However, I did watch the video. It does give some depth to the text summary, and it does look - to my untrained eye/ear for spotting video fakes - like the three soldiers were deliberately shot in the knees by someone dressed in fatigues and partly visible in the video. But I don't see it strengthening the interpretation of « a pu authentifier » beyond "We consider the video to be authentic and it seems quite likely that this was a war crime". Since this section seems to have converged on the question of the lead, and Gitz seems to have accepted to remove the sentence on Le Monde from the lead (and someone did that removal), the discussion on this point seems closed to me. Boud (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was removed by MVBW (with an edit summary that I don't understand) here: . I accept that I don't have a consensus for including that text, but I don't accept that removing the text is an improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * After looking at the article in Le Monde, I should say that: (a) this is just a half of a page very brief news report (not really a great source), and (b) who is Erich Auerbach and why does he qualify as an expert? My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you watch the documentary attached to the article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently no. Can you give a link? I saw something long time ago, but that was something different judging from the description on the page (I did not see anyone shooting anyone on the video). This page should be renamed to Video with alleged torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. My very best wishes (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can watch the documentary at this url: . It's in French but there's the option of English subtitles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Meduza source - victims
Meduza has a useful report from the victims' families, who are desperate to get info from Russian authorities: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/06/16/he-had-a-bag-over-his-head-and-a-broken-face, "'He had a bag over his head and a broken face' Russian mother identifies conscript son in video appearing to show Ukrainian troops shooting prisoners of war", 16 June 2022, Meduza. Boud (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I just added a few contents on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Fact check 1
Despite the [tweet below https://mobile.twitter.com/zcjbrooker/status/1522249098807627779], the article said “Le Monde published a video in which they confirmed geolocations and information about possible suspects in the shootings that were first reported by Erich Auerbach.“

Auerbach didn’t first report the shootings, nor does he give “information about possible suspects”

“erich_auerbach @zcjbrooker · May 5 On 1 May, I geolocated the above new video, but did not have any certain matches between it and the persons in the kneecapping footage, or any names. “ Elinruby (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fact check 2
Under “Video” we say the Kraken Battalion was fighting nearby, and throw in a gratuitous reference to Azov Battalion. This is attributed to Libération but cited to France24. That might not matter much, except that in the next section we say it is actually the Slobozhanshchyna Battalion that was nearby. It does appear that the heavy blond man in the two videos is the unit commander of the Slobozhanshchyna afaict, and indeed Le Monde does say so Elinruby (talk)
 * I found the source (Libération) and quoted it. It says Azov fighters and links to a video released by Kraken, but they are connected. Also Kraken/Azov units in the area is not inconsistent with Slobozhanshchyna being there too. If I'm not wrong, also Le Monde says that Azov was active in the area. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed later that somebody said there were three volunteer units in the area. Neither Libé nor France24 is a perennial source, but I don’t dispute that France24 is reliable, and my mind is open on Libé...it used to be a left-wing rag with a pedigree but our article on them says they are now center-left. Shrug. I used to read it, and it was a slangy tabloid then, but offhand if it has a fact-checking operation it’s probably reliable and if it can afford one on Ukraine, I guess it’s gotten bourgeois. I am a little skeptical about this link, but I will look. I suspect an appeal to sensationalism. I do appreciate you hunting down the link. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fact check 3
“One of the new arrivals is also appears to be struck in the head with the butt of a rifle.[citation needed]”

This is uncited. Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I added the citation: HRW. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fact check 4
“five people in military uniforms lying on the floor with their hands tied and bullet wounds in their legs.[failed verification][citation needed]” - neither video narration nor article says that the men laying on the ground (not floor) as Le Monde video opens have been shot in the leg. Don’t think either one says there are five of them either. Three men definitely do get shot in the leg after that. By somebody. Elinruby (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah. Journalists who visited Malaya Rohan on March 28 reported that they saw the bodies of two Russian soldiers in the streets and two others who had been thrown into a well. They said that a Ukrainian soldier interviewed claimed five Russian soldiers had been captured, one of whom was killed while trying to escape“ — from HRW; possibly this is where five comes from, but the link to support this goes to a 404 page, and they aren’t saying that these are the same soldiers Elinruby (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * HRW: "The longer video shows five men in military uniform on the ground with their hands bound and two of them with bags over their heads. At least three of the captives appear to be wounded in the leg." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC: "...a number of captured soldiers lying on the ground. Some have bags over their heads, and many appear to be bleeding from leg wounds". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. That isn’t five men all shot in the leg. That’s “many” and “at least three”, which is not the same thing. I was about to follow up on that one, but it still isn’t five men shot in the leg. It wouldn’t be a big deal if it wasn’t all like this. Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Le Monde does say five, “most of them wounded”. Nothing there about legs however. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Le Monde documentary: "In this 5-minute video, 5 men, most of them apparently wounded, are lying on the ground and being mistreated by soldiers … The 3 other men are unloaded from a van. A solider approaches and shoots them in the leg". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Right but the article says the video shows five men with their hands tied who had been shot in the leg. The video doesn’t say their hands are tied, either. We do see at least one whose hands are tied, but the article says five. Elinruby (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * HRW:"The longer video shows five men in military uniform on the ground with their hands bound". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also the part about five Russian soldiers, one of whom is shot trying to escape — although it is correctly cited to HRW, article attributes this to Agence France-Presse, which HRW doesn’t mention. Perhaps that is where the dead Yahoo link went? As it stands it is wrong though Elinruby (talk)


 * I think we should remove that part. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Um ya Elinruby (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Re hands: I will look at the HRW source again. If it is in fact in that source and gets correctly cited to that source, then very fine. Same thing for “five”. I am just objecting to all the hand-waving and extrapolation. You still don’t have a source that says the men on the ground were shot in the leg, though, so you should remove that. At least one of the sources does say they were wounded, however. No objection to saying that, though it would be nice to cite it. I think it was Le Monde in the video narration. Elinruby (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * BBC: "...a number of captured soldiers lying on the ground. Some have bags over their heads, and many appear to be bleeding from leg wounds". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * why not just say “many” like the source does? I think Le Monde says “la plupart” (most) are wounded; but if you really must have leg wounds, then say what the source says and cite it to the source that says it. But ya, I accept BBC as a reliable source, and if they say that then ok, at least you’re extrapolating from data Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should use HRW "At least three of the captives appear to be wounded in the leg". The info about at least three (out of five) already with wounds in the leg is not a useless gruesome detail: it suggests that this way of torturing and probably killing POWs had been going on for quite a while at the farm before the video was recorded. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Dead Russian soldiers
There are multiple sources talking about the bodies of dead Russian soldiers. Some of them suggest that officers abandoned the wounded and/or shot themselves. Article attempts to link the purported shooting to two (not five!) bodies found in a well, but omits other sources that suggest the Russians were shooting their own soldiers. If this article is notable enough to cover, it is worth getting this stuff right. The Ukrainians say they are refrigerating the bodies in the Russians want them back Elinruby (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please share the sources you mentioned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am rather sick of Wikipedia right now, at the end of a long session. There are three links in the thread you started on the War crimes article. I am willing to copy them over here later, and even find others, but that’s where they are if you want to look at them now. To be clear, many of them probably died in battle, and at least one article mentions a suicide, but some of them were also shot with their hands tied, so regardless of who did that, I think don’t it’s possible to impute responsibility for the burned corpses mentioned by HRW. If you can search in languages other than English or French you may find sources I haven’t. One way to resolve the dispute over “verified” and “authenticated” would be to find another reliable source that says that yes, this was Ukrainian forces. You do realize however that Donbas units would speak Russian with a Ukrainian accent, right? Just checking. The Slovoda Ukraine unit whose Ukrainian name I can never remember, with the irate commander whose name I can also never remember, was from Kharkiv, I believe, though, and those soldiers would also speak Russian with a Ukrainian accent. This doesn’t explain the radio speaking Russian in a Russian accent however Elinruby (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * do you remember that Le Monde says that the 3 POWs who came with a van had been recorded on camera during that evening, 700m away down the road, while being held captive by identified Ukrainian soldiers? I don't see those soldiers handing down their prisoners to Russian separatists who then, after having changed into Ukrainian uniforms, remain in the area and stage a fake video. That's the reason why Le Monde says they have authenticated the video. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the entire reason why the information there from auerbach-le monde is of interest. Because those are Ukrainians from the commander's videos, and it isn't like the prisoners could have ended up being shot by non-Ukrainians. That's why it is known to be a Ukrainian war crime, Le Monde makes the case perfectly clear, and frankly, I don't care about the exact verb choice and never will. But this insight should be spelled out simply at the start. Hipponoticed (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

ok well. I decline to do another round of listening to you explain my maternal language to me. Would this be eight or nine? Peace out. The following are some of the sources you asked for. Elinruby (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Censor.net: During liberation of Mala Rohan by Armed Forces of Ukraine Russian commanders left wounded and tried to run away Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Kyiv Post: Ukrainian Army: Over 36,000 Russian Soldiers Killed So Far - not really citable for this but has a photo of many body bags in Mala Rohan Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ukraine gathers Russian dead in chilled train for prisoner exchange - possible suicide, also soldier with hands tied Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed
- if there are any objections to these edits, please explain why. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The origin is known. We know where it was recorded and we know where it was first circulated. What is unknown is the author. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "allegedly shows" is not OK. The video shows what it shows. Who is alleging that it shows whatever? It's a given fact. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...but I'm OK with removing the other contents falling under wp:synth. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that Butusov's video of the crime scene is irrelevant is absurd. There's a reason it got picked up by others than Censor. Hipponoticed (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * https://theintercept.com/2022/03/31/ukrainian-journalist-finds-charred-remains-alleged-war-crime-filmed/?utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social its the same place related to the same battle. Hipponoticed (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Intercept says "Nothing in Butusov’s video proves how the men died". There had been a battle there and there's no reason for believing that those dead Russian soldiers documented by Yuri Butusov (Censor.net) had been captured and killed by the Ukrainian army. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

OHCHR's take on the incident.
The OHCHR describes the incident in the following way:

Source: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I forgot to report the following important footnote from the OHCHR's report: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lengthy squabbling over “authentication” and each and every detail of how to verify a video
It’s longer than the article is and is, in many ways, pathetic given the knowledge of people who use Wikipedia and investigate sources. I understand this is a really nasty thing and many people have their stake in events like these. But it is clear that on these pages, there is a strong wish that people will not think of this event, will disregard it and question the truth of it. And I want to ask: why are you doing that?

I suggest that this strong wish to deny and squabble over tiny details be written into the article to improve it and better reflect people’s feelings of reaction to it.

Additionally, I suggest that reactions of the US and other leaders should be included, I don’t understand why these are missing. TlalocAxe (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * er, most likely because it didn't happen, fyi. At least not like this, The other user spent a lot of time trying to get this kind of stuff in the encyclopedia and is no longer allowed to write about this war. Me, I just like sources to be quoted accurately and the right people to be accused. I would have been fine with this and initially was, until I realized that three different volunteer units were being accused depending on which reliable source you look at.
 * Just a suggestion, if you spend a litte time at Bellingcat you may see why I was concerned. Last time I checked they hadn't investigared this alleged incident, and I wish they would. You ask a valid question and I am answering you respectfully. The Russians are notorious for their false flag operations and I believe this is one of them. I'd be just as happy to find out I was wrong; it's tedious to answer. over and over again, the question "why is there no coverage of Ukrainian war crimes on Wikipedia?" If you can find some reliable sources for this incident, go for it, It's a year later and it's possible there is a report or some other reliable source about this by now. If it happened.


 * I got annoyed and stalked off about the tenth time I was told I didn't understand my native language by someone who doesn't speak it at all. Do you blame me? In French, in fact all of the Romance languages I believe, use of the conditional tense like that indicates a quote, a sort if tacit "if true". It just does.Elinruby (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Might qualify as a war crime
"Might qualify" is not enough to qualify this article into "war crimes" category. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)