Talk:Olenivka prison massacre

Requested move 29 July 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: no consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus to include "attack" in the title. However, the other move discussion on this page had significantly more support. Now that this discussion is closed, the one below can be reopened. (closed by non-admin page mover) >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Olenivka prison explosion → Olenivka prison attack – More often described by the media as an attack rather than an explosion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, I saw explosion more often. Немков (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose based on the definitions of explosions and attack, not enough info yet. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support The proposed title is accurate and more specific, better fulfilling the WP:CRITERION of precision. —Michael Z. 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The name should be "Mass murder of prisoners in Olenivka" to better reflect the situation. When I have initially created this article in enwiki/ruwiki/ukrwiki there were not enough sources on what has happened so hence there was a different name, which I have chosen. But now it's clear that not only muss murder has happened but both sides accuse each other, so that would be a better name. And it's won't be NPOV. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 14:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, an attack could mean other things, like an attack with infantry. DuckTheDucker (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Explosion can imply there is a freak accident. So far no sources indicate an accident took place. Explosion is a lot more ambiguous than attack. 70.53.25.213 (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree (support). I see more articles calling it an attack (including this Wikipedia article). No one is suggesting it was an accidental explosion. Netanyahuserious (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Explosion is NPOV and factual. It is unclear if this was a deliberate attack or an accidental mis-targeting because both sides are accusing each other of an attack. At present, there is no confirmation of what happened. I think it is TOOSOON to decide on a permanent title. Allow investigations to take place and judicial authorities to come to a considered conclusion before revisiting this article's title. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

An attack that didn’t hit its intended target is still an attack. —Michael Z. 14:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Cameron Dewe's reasoning. Attack implies intention. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Support - Since the form of attack isn't known, it's better to say "attack" rather than "explosion". CupWithSoda19 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: It has been assessed that the Russians did it. Dawsongfg (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Dawsongfg, hi, could you post the sources? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-1

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/01/us-rockets-not-used-ukraine-prison-strike-00048948 and https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-30 are the links they used as references to that Dawsongfg (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Dawsongfg, I was reading the Politico link, seems is still a bit too early. While one of the officials stopped short of saying Ukraine was not responsible for the strike, the other official said the evidence showed the attack was not conducted by Kyiv. We should wait until at least an official statement is out. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, not much info is available. RandomPotato123 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Not enough sources confirming if it was an intentional attack and competing claims who did it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Close this RM already. It is clear it will not pass and that the one below had more traction. Super Ψ Dro 20:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Requested move 30 July 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: moved. Consensus to move to Olenivka prison massacre. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Olenivka prison explosion → Mass murder of prisoners in Olenivka – The main subject is not the distraction of some old barrack (due to airstrike or explosion), but the event of a mass murder. In Spanish wikipedia it was already renamed. In Ukrainian as well. Let's please discuss. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 13:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Don't see problem, NPOV isn't a problem for obvious reasons, even though there's an article about "2022 Russian Explosions" or something. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

'Oppose per NPOV. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What is not neutral in the new name? We have confirmation that people were killed. We are not accusing any side in the event. We just reflect that prisoners were killed. Do you have any doubt that they were prisoners or that they were killed? With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 14:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If we blindlessly stuck to NPOV in articles about the invasion, Bucha massacre would be titled something like Civilian murders in Bucha of unknown authorship. Of course that's not the case. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support are we seriously going to trust anything that comes from the mouth of the Russian authorities? After so many blatant lies and broken promises? I personally do not trust the Russian side and their continuous attitude since late 2021 should make their word questioned in Wikipedia. I believe this was a premeditated mass murder. Just look at the tweet the Russian embassy in London published on the same day. Western analyses about the event will appear in the coming days or weeks and I am 100% sure what they will say will be closer to the Ukrainian side of the story. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support npov doesn't mean parroting blatant propaganda—blindlynx 16:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but I think Olenivka massacre of Ukrainian prisoners of war better meets the WP:CRITERIA of precision and consistency. —Michael Z. 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Support. A pretty clearly defined name. Without any NPOV (as no direct blame on any of the sides). With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 20:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support, but consider Olenivka massacre of Ukrainian prisoners of war, per Michael Z. @Dunutubble: This was a mass murder and massacre no matter whether it was by a UA HIMARS precise strike or by a RU Wagner local bombing. This is one thing that the two sides (all sources) fully agree on. Boud (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Well, almost fully agree - the RU UK Embassy tweeted that mass murder of Azov Battalion members is justified, but that's not a denial. Boud (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support Though I too would probably prefer “massacre” per Boud and Michael. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support although I think Olenivka prison massacre is more concise and carries essentially the same meaning (I don't think the fact that it was Ukrainian POWs who were massacred needs to be emphasized that much, most readers can guess that plus it's in the lead & short description). Dan the Animator 23:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MURDERS. If no murder conviction has been given, the article shouldn't be called that. Also, I think it is a bit too early and investigations are still ongoing. For all we know, it could all be a freak accident like USS Maine (I doubt it). Yet "Olenivka prison explosion" covers all grounds, and doesn't leave out the 8 prison guards that also perished. If anything, once more info is available, I would propose changing to "Olenivka prison attack/shelling/bombing" (depending of the investigations) AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Edit: "Olenivka prison massacre" could work too as a title. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If that's not neutral then.. well it'll get problematic what I'm comparing it to Dawsongfg (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support moving to mass murder/massacre, because the destruction of the prison is not the point of the article, what RS are really covering is mass murder. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support and agree that "massacre" would be better. We do not even know if it was an explosion or an arson at this point. Some commenters even claimed that some of the people could be killed elsewhere and their bodies brought to the building to stage the "attack". My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

I propose to remove that allegation about the embassy

"On the same day, the Russian embassy in London published a tweet saying Azov Regiment members "deserve execution, but death not by firing squad but by hanging, because they're not real soldiers. They deserve a humiliating death." The embassy said that the tweet was a quote from an interview with a married couple from Mariupol."

I think it makes no sense to keep this part, as in the video (look here[1]) posted by the embassy there is this very quote from a Mariupol civilian. We are not talking about anything refutable, it can be verified that it has nothing to do with this matter. Mhorg (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Mhorg, I have removed it. While completely out of touch by the Embassy, it is clear that they were citing the man on the attach video of the tweet, and as such can't be taken as their own words. So it is completely unrelated, I don't think it has place on this article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I put it back. Sources make the connection. Volunteer Marek 09:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That it is a part taken from the video is a fact, not something 'said by the embassy'. So, either we fix this part by specifying that there is no doubt about it, or we remove the whole thing for irrelevance. Mhorg (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Mhorg and Volunteer Marek, I've changed the text a little bit, removed "The embassy said that the tweet was a quote" and just left it as "The embassy quoted". It is clear that it is a quote, but also I've added a source that states it. Let me know what you both think. Still think the relation between both is just by chance (the video must have been edited and ready to post way before the prison explosion) but it is true that it caused a reaction and many sources made the connection. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It should remain because reliable sources have connected it to the Olenivka attack, and obviously it is a threat against the Ukrainian soldiers who were killed and wounded there.

It is not clear at all that it is a quote from the text of the tweet alone, as there are no quotation marks and the tweet doesn’t say it’s a quote. There is a second statement about a couple but it’s not even implied that they are being quoted. In fact it appears to be paraphrasing the man in the video (at about 5:58). When did the embassy “say it was a quote”?

The Russian embassy posted a dehumanizing exhortation to violence, and it was flagged as hate speech. It posted a praise of violence against identifiable people, after they were apparently murdered and wounded by Russian forces. —Michael Z. 22:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, the sources call it a quote, and it is quote clear that it is a quote because, although they don't use quotation marks, they do put this emoji: "💬" before the sentence, and say "A married couple from #Mariupol tell how they were shelled by 🇺🇦forces from #Azovstal."
Right now I can't check the video as it has been removed, but I remember it being word from word what was on the tweet. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen that emoji used to indicate a quotation before, or a style guide that says an emoji is conventionally used to indicate a quotation, and I did not get that that emoji indicated a quotation when I saw the tweet and screenshots of it. I am certain that quotation in the tweet did not correspond precisely to the English translation in the video captions, skipping some phrases and possibly using different words – we can probably find a copy of the video somewhere if it needs confirmation. Yes, I get that it was in fact a loosely translated quote or paraphrase, and this question is mainly academic.

Because sources do also say something to the effect “the Russian embassy issued a tweet that says the Azov members killed deserve a humiliating death,” and the tweet was flagged as hate speech, and it was issued later on the day of the explosion. Do you need me to locate and quote them? Sources linked the tweet to what mounting evidence indicates was likely the mass murder of prisoners of war. Some experts linked the tweet and the Russian designation of Azov as terrorist four days later to the explosion. Some experts linked the explosion and the publication of the mutilation and murder video to the changing battlefield situation. We should relevant sources and add them too. —Michael Z. 20:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, I don't know what to tell you, I don't think a "Manual of Style of how to use emojis" exists. Although if you want, here is emojis wiki, which states Use it when you want to show somebody’s citation.

And here you have a tweet by Defence of Ukraine twitter account, using the emoji to convey quotation, and one by MFA Russia and another one by Russian Embassy in Spain. What other meaning would you give to that emoji?

And sure, please, do provide a copy of the video if you can find it. I've been looking for it and unable to do so, but as I remember the text was word by word what the video said. (As quotes work).AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant a manual style for English usage. You’re kind of missing my point. If you use that emoji to indicate a quotation in a Wikipedia article, maybe someone will soon clarify it for you. —Michael Z. 13:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oh no, this statement/official tweet by Russian Embassy was quoted in RS in connection with the event and seem to be much relevant and important. Keep it please. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

CNN 11 Aug source

There's a CNN 11 Aug 2022 investigation that doesn't seem to have been used yet in the article. Boud (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Boud, It is actually a very good source. So far I've added it to the external links section. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainskaya Pravda source removed

Removed this part "Based on the available photographic and video evidence numerous military experts and suggested that the most likely weapon was a locally fired thermobaric grenade." -> did not specify which experts they were talking about...besides, we already have enough major Western sources. Mhorg (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

what do we care about the theories of an Israeli-Ukrainian military officer?

This is WP:UNDUE:

An Israeli-Ukrainian military officer suggested that Russia perpetrated the attack on Ukrainian war prisoners to make Russian soldiers fear torture and thus deter them from surrendering to Ukrainian forces advancing in the Kherson region.

Source, Kyiv Independent: [2]. So basically a non-notable expert is suggesting that the Russians killed the Ukrainian POWs because they want the Ukrainian army to retaliate and start torturing and killing Russian POWs so that the Russian soldiers will no longer surrender for fear of coming to a bad end. This is a purely speculative hypothesis, with no empirical evidence to support it. It doesn't help our readers understand what happened in Olenivka. It's the kind of tabloid stuff that the quality press doesn't publish and neither should we. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL

Vast majority of 3rd party experts and sources describe this as a crime by Russian forces. The claim by Russian Ministry of Defense that it was a false flag murder of Ukrainian POV by Ukrainian army is simply ridiculous. Let's not frame it in the lead as equal possibilities ("both sides accused each other"). Yes, UN did not investigate it yet, but it does not really matter. We simply say what RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, all sources say they don't know what happened. During a war, there are things one simply does not know. Secondly, and most importantly, the sentence "both sides accused each other" in no way implies equality of possibilities!!! the only thing this sentence implies is what it says, which is verifiable and incontrovertible: both sides accused each other. All sources, including the Institute for the Study of War, use this purely descriptive and non-committal wording, and you and Volunteer Marek read that sentence as implying something that is simply not there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No, of course saying "both sides accused each other" makes them equal. And no, the sources (such as CNN article in the thread just below) do say that according to evidence and experts, the crime was almost certainly (or certainly) committed by Russian forces, while the story by Russian Ministry of Defence was lie. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No, of course saying "both sides accused each other" does not makes them equal. Really, I don't understand your reasoning. "Both sides accused each other" is a non-committal, purely descriptive introductory statement. This is the sequence of the paragraph:

1) Both sides accused each other;

2) The Ukrainians said bla bla1;

3) The Russians said bla bla2

4) A CNN investigation, based on experts, says that bla bla2 is very likely a fabrication.

That's what independent RSs tell us, that's what we're going to report. Come on! Why do you build barricades over nothing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If we agree that the sides are not equal (as we seem to agree), why start this para from the phrase "both sides accused each other" which describes them as equal? My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatr do you mean by "... describes them as equal"? They are equal in that they both accuse each other - yes, in this they are equal. But accusing someone doesn't imply that they are guilty and you innocent, or that you and they are equally at fault! Honestly, the idea that someone could understand "they blamed each other" as implying "they are equally at fault" is beyond my understanding. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Saying "they accused each other" implies that the responsibility is equally uncertain for the both sides. This is absolutely not the case based on the coverage in RS, such as CNN, etc. Hence you are pushing a false balance here, please see WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The text already says what Russia claimed so this sentence is not necessary. Volunteer Marek 03:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

independent analysis or CNN investigation?

Why should we say "According to independent analysis the Russian version of events is very likely a fabrication"? Why can't we say "According to a CNN investigation the Russian version of events is very likely a fabrication"?

The latter formulation is

1. more informative: it tells the reader which is the source of the investigation is instead of leaving this relevant information unspecified;
2. more verifiable and accurate: in fact, the source (CNN) doesn't say that "an independent analysis" (carried out by others) established this and that; it literally says A CNN investigation ... concludes the Russian version of events is very likely a fabrication. So basically @My very best wishes [3] and @Volunteer Marek [4], who on this occasion agree with each other, are suggesting to edit this sentence (taken from the source) to hide the fact that the source of the investigation is the CNN itself, and to make it apprear that CNN was reporting on an "independent investigation" done by others!

Somebody please explain to me what the point of this is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Because that is what the cited source says. It refers to conclusions/analysis by independent experts. Here is the source, and it says: "Several weapons experts told CNN images and video from Olenivka were incompatible with a HIMARS attack. Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who reviewed images and video of the aftermath, says the building, a warehouse with thin walls and metal roof, would not have been left standing by a HIMARS strike...", and so on. Yes, this is a very serious CNN article/investigation, and it says/implies very clearly that the massacre was committed by Russian side. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

How on earth can CNN do an investigation if not by inteviewing experts? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we should say "according to independent experts [or analysis]". That is what RS (this CNN article) say. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

”CNN investigation” sounds like some journalists did it, which is not the case. CNN (the reliable secondary source here) contacted experts (the primary source here) and they did the investigation. Volunteer Marek 03:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Then let's say "According to a CNN investigation based on the work of forensic and weapons experts". Eliminating information can never be the solution to a problem of vagueness; rather, let's add information to the text, if vagueness is the issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"A CNN investigation based on analysis of video and photographs from the scene, satellite imagery from before and after the attack and the work of forensic and weapons experts concludes the Russian version of events is very likely a fabrication." This is what the source says, so we report what it says. Mhorg (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But the conclusion by this CNN report/investigation is consistent with many other sources. That's why we say in lead something very similar to CNN conclusion. This should not be be framed as "two sides accused each other" like you do [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The "two sides accused each other" thing is the topic of the above thread. Here we discuss about "A CNN investigation". It is a CNN investigation, it refers to itself as a "CNN investigation", and we're going to call it a CNN investigation as well, not "an independent analysis". However, given VM's concern, we can add "...based on the work of forensic and weapons experts", so it is clear that it was not done by some journalists alone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrators disputed

The "disputed" was removed[6] from the article. According to this source[7] we read: "It said that it has not identified the source of the explosion but would continue to follow up on the incident." Therefore, an investigation has not yet been conducted and it is not even known what caused the explosion. We cannot remove the fact that it is yet to be disputed. Mhorg (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There’s no credible accusation against Ukraine. Russia was responsible for protecting the PWs in its custody, and it’s responsible for war crimes committed by the DLNR, some Russian PMC, or any other group under control of the Kremlin.  —Michael Z. 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Also, as our page correctly says, there was an independent investigation (i.e. by CNN journalists). There were statements by Institute for the Study of War, etc. And even UN rejected "Russian version" [8]. There is no any dispute in RS about it. Saying that Ukrainian side is potentially guilty here is a possible WP:BLPCRIME violation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single line of text in the article that says the Russian military is to blame. All I read is: "According to a CNN investigation based on the work of forensic and weapons experts, the Russian version of events is very likely a fabrication", which is a very different statement from saying: the Russians are to blame. I invite you to do a revert, Wikipedia should not speculate and should not pass any verdict. WP:BLPCRIME exists precisely for this reason. Mhorg (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single RS that would blame the Ukrainian side.--Aristophile (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. One must have multiple RS saying that Ukraine was the perpetrator to include it to the infobox. We do have multiple RS saying or implying this about Russia. Not mentioning that Ukrainian forces killing their own Ukrainian prisoners would be an "exceptional claim".My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single source that says there is evidence that the Russians did it. So we on Wikipedia are anticipating verdicts that in the real world have not been declared. This is wrong, considering the scale of such a massacre. Mhorg (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, the cited sources do assess Russian side as guilty party. For example, according to Institute for the Study of War [9].: Given the US assessment that HIMARS were not used in the attack, ISW assesses that Russia was responsible for this attack on Ukrainian POWs in violation of the Geneva Conventions.. It says "ISW assesses". My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This can be added to the article, but it does not close the story. Events of this kind require investigations in the site and much more. We are in the realm of speculation here, and Wikipedia cannot pass verdicts on speculation. Mhorg (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Informally speaking, there are no doubts the massacre was committed by Russian or Russia-affiliated forces. They even blocked the access of UN investigators. The claim by Russian MoD was a fabrication [10]. There are additional source which could be used [11], [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that restricting access to the massacre site is suspicious, but we cannot pass judgment here. What matters is what is said internationally. Regarding the sources you bring: Focus cites the opinion of the Ukrainian security services. They are involved in the war, therefore not reliable. While Radio Free Europe: “It’s important not only to achieve the resumption of an international investigation, but most importantly, not to let those who are still in captivity be forgotten".

As I said before, there are no first-class sources that have a verdict in hand. We on Wikipedia cannot be the ones to decide it. Mhorg (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the change from "very likely a fabrication" to "was a fabrication",[13] from CNN investigation, there is a reason they wrote it that way. Otherwise they would have had a clearer judgement. And we cannot misrepresent what the source says. Mhorg (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War, p. 188: “More than forty of them had been killed in late July by a staged explosion at the prisoner barracks in the prisoner-of-war camp at Olenivka in the occupied Donbas.”

This reliable source footnotes a story citing Ukraine’s accusations for that sentence, accepting them as true: Yahoo! News (New Voice of Ukraine): “[14]  —Michael Z. 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

They are not first-class sources, we cannot let either side in the conflict give a verdict. I also invite you to check out the website of The New Voice of Ukraine, it seems to be an extremely pro-Ukrainian website.[15] Mhorg (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Plokhy is a top academic source on the subject. NV is a reliable news source. Take the poo-pooing to WP:RSN.  —Michael Z. 16:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

And your logic is scattershot. NV faithfully reproduced attributed statements with the parties identified. There’s nothing to find fault with there, and you’re only stabbing in the dark by baselessly attacking it (you even look at the link?)

It’s Plokhy who accepted the statements as fact. It’s an academic opinion, by possibly the top historian of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Did Plokhy conduct the investigation? Mhorg (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why, do you want to remove from all articles all citations of experts who did not conduct investigations?  —Michael Z. 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me where I wrote this. I am just telling you that they cannot determine who is the "perpetrator". That is something the investigator determines. We can add the opinion of any academic but not decree any verdict with their opinions. Which is what you are doing. Mhorg (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

We commonly report academic consensus. We might attribute it where it is reliably disputed or fairly new. But there is no risk that academics will declare the Russian propaganda lies that Ukraine purposely used HIMARS to silence its own soldiers that the Russians moved to a frontline prison.  —Michael Z. 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I note that Volodymyr Viatrovych is published in The New Voice of Ukraine,[16] which has been referred to by Western sources as "The Historian Whitewashing Ukraine's Past".[17][18][19] As I said before, it would appear to be an extremely pro-Ukrainian website. Mhorg (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Headed “Opinion”; url under /opinion/ section. Wake up. we can disqualify every major newspaper if we did it based on opinion pieces.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Mhorg’s argument is basically this:

— Evidence says Russians mass-murdered prisoners of war to cover up torture and blamed it on Ukraine.

— But Viatrovych is an Ukro-Nazi!

​  —Michael Z. 16:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, I find this tone of yours offensive. Could we get back to a peaceful dialogue?

Yes, I am convinced that a newspaper hosting someone like Viatrovich might not be reliable. I fear it is a newspaper that is too sided with the Ukrainian government, which is one of the parties involved in this dispute. Mhorg (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Simply as an example (I do not know how reliable is the "New Voice of Ukraine" might be)... Please see List of The New York Times controversies. It does not make NYT an unreliable source. Can it publish some wrong or questionable info? Yes, sure. That's why we are using multiple RS here. All of them say that the claim by Russian MoD was false.My very best wishes (talk)

I find your innuendo offensive.

But perhaps you can identify what’s wrong with the relevant cited article in NV, apart from “Viatrovych!”  —Michael Z. 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

In serious cases like this, where many people are being killed, it would be better to use first-class Western sources. Pro-government Ukrainian ones may not be reliable as parties to the dispute. The proposed Western sources never say that guilt has been established. Wikipedia is no substitute for real-world investigations. Mhorg (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Plokhy is a first-class Western source.  —Michael Z. 13:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Does Serhii Plokhy specialise in history? Maybe we need experts in explosives or something like that. But still, I doubt we can use the words of individual academics to declare this case closed. I think some of the rules of Wikipedia are being violated. Mhorg (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No one said that "the case is closed". Of course it does not. It is going to be investigated a lot more in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Explosives experts said the Russian HIMARS claims were false. I think this conclusion comes from at least four separate sources now.  —Michael Z. 15:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If we write that the "perpetrator" is Russia, it is as if we are saying "the case is closed". And we have no sources to write this. Please, let's solve this problem in the article. Mhorg (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

First, this is not a case of individual responsibility or bio of living person, so “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” is not a requirement.

Sources say Russian forces committed the crime, while some say Russian forces probably committed the crime (looks like 99% probably, not 51%). They also say the Russian story is definitely BS, they offer no possible alternative, and no sources say the Russians did not commit it. And they further point out the Russians refused to permit direct investigation by the UN and ICRC to confirm the truth. This is accepted theory, not untested hypothesis. Objectively, identifying the perpetrator is correct IMO.

If you really feel a consensus might disagree, I suggest you move forward with WP:DR by inviting more opinions from relevant wikiProjects or filing an RFC.  —Michael Z. 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a follow-up by CNN to their investigation. Yes, Russian MoD accused Ukrainian forces of killing their own people. However, that accusation by Russian MoD was proven to be a lie/disinformation, according to multiple RS (like linked above). Therefore, we can not include the Ukrainian side even as a possible perpetrator to the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Some book sources in addition to Plokhy that I quoted above. They may be otherwise useful for the article, too.

• Samuel Ramani (Russian foreign-policy expert), Putin's War on Ukraine: Russia’s Campaign for Global Counter-Revolution, 2023, Hurst.[20]

  The 29 July Olenivka Prison Massacre, in which 53 Ukrainian POWs from Azovstal were killed, was an especially egregious war crime. Zelensky deplored Russia's attack on Olenivka as "deliberate mass murder", stating that it proved that Russia was the world's largest source of terrorism. Podolyak stated that Russia had struck Olenivka to disrupt agreements about the exchange of Azov Battalion fighters and conceal the growing extent of Russian war crimes. Podolyak also cited Russia's refusal to allow a UN mission to visit Olenivka and denial of access to Red Cross representatives visiting prisoners as proof of its culpability. In its trademark fashion, Russia denied responsibility for the Olenivka Massacre and accused Ukraine of perpetrating the killings instead. The Russian defence ministry accused Ukraine of carrying out a HIMARS strike on Olenivka, while the DR authorities claimed that Ukraine was trying to silence Azov militants who would divulge the criminal orders they had received from the Kyiv authorities. These accusations were swiftly debunked. A HIMARS strike would lead to craters, shattered walls and ceilings, and detonated bodies, which were not observed in Olenivka Massacre footage. Immediately after the Olenivka attacks, Russian officials created post-facto justifications for the killing of Azov Regiment fighters. The Russian Embassy in Britain provided moral justification for the killing of Azov militants, stating, “Azov militants deserve execution but death not by firing squad but by hanging because they're not real soldiers. They deserve a humiliating death.” On 2 August, Russia designated the Azov Regiment a terrorist organisation, which Azov interpreted as proof that Russia was looking for “new excuses and explanations for its war crimes.” Public Chamber lawyer Ilya Remeslo opined that Azov Regiment fighters would be reclassified from POWs to terrorists, which would give Russia a legitimate right to “use military force and targeted strikes across the world” against them. The terrorism designation also provided a 10-20 year prison sentence for Russian collaborators with Azov.

• Jade McGlynn (expert on Russia), Russia’s War, 2023, Wiley.[21]

  Given that they do not recognise their own death tolls, it is unsurprising that the Russian military authorities are even less forthcoming about atrocities they have committed against the other side. . . . Despite overwhelming evidence of culpability, Russian authorities have denied [the Bucha massacre], just as they have also denied they killed the inmates at the Olenivka POW prison, contending improbably that Zelensky had ordered the execution of Azov prisoners for telling the truth to their Russian captors. Such flagrant lying recalls the Soviet authorities refusal to admit guilt for the infamous precursor of Olenivka - Katyn, the forest where the Soviet Union shot thousands of Polish officers and then blamed it on the Nazis for four decades. In the worst instances, the denial is no less vociferous for being delivered with a smirk.

• Luke Harding (journalist), Invasion: The Inside Story of Russia's Bloody War and Ukraine's Fight for Survival, 2022, Knopf Doubleday.[22]

  Around twenty-five hundred Azovstal fighters surrendered following orders from Kyiv. In custody, they were tortured, intimidated, and starved. In July, at least fifty were blown up and murdered at Olenivka, a camp outside separatist Donetsk.

• Vadym Chovgan (international human-rights lawyer), Mykhailo Romanov (expert on penal law and criminology), Vasyl Melnychuk (human-rights lawyer), “Nine circles of hell”: Places of Detention in Ukraine under the Russian Occupation, March 2022 – December 2022, 2023, Danish Institute Against Torture.[23]

  [58] On 29 July 2022, more than 53 Ukrainian prisoners of war were killed and at least 75 were wounded in an attack at a prison in Olenivka. The prison was located in the part of Donetsk region controlled by Russia.

  Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of launching the attack. The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces said that the Russians blew up the barracks to cover up the torture and murder of Ukrainian POWs that had been taking place there, while Russians claimed that a HIMARS rocket was shot from the Ukrainian territory. According to a CNN investigation based on the work of forensic and weapons experts, the Russian version of events is very likely a fabrication, as there is virtually no chance that the damage was caused by a HIMARS rocket.

  On 3 August 2022, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced his decision to establish a fact-finding mission, as requested by both Russia and Ukraine. However, Russia refused to cooperate with the UN and International Red Cross, and the fact-finding mission was disbanded.

 —Michael Z. 16:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. All books by experts, very recent. I think first source summarizes this story the best. Indeed, it matters that a lot of them are "Azov" soldiers, as this source explains. Some other soldiers were taken to Russian Kangaroo court, and I am not sure what their fate is. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)