Talk:Irpin refugee column shelling

Stand-alone page
While I believe this topic is notable based on coverage, I'm not sure there's enough here to pass the threshold of WP:PAGEDECIDE for having its own, stand-alone article page. It seems unlikely this topic will expand in the future, and so the page will never be more than a stub. This would be an argument in favor of merging and redirecting it. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, it was a notable event widely covered by the media. It has more than sufficient reasons to stand on its own.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would also disagree, this is one of the few incidents where independent observers were present and it is notable that HRW had issues with both Russia and Ukraine forces’ actions Ilenart626 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , You mmisunderstand my comment, perhaps. I totally agree with both of you that it is a notable event widely covered by the media; there's no question about that. That is an argument for WP:Notability, which this topic easily passes. But it's not an argument for having an article by itself. Many articles start out as a stub, and then get expanded into full articles, as more information comes out, and more sources continue to cover it. Contrast this article with the Mariupol theatre airstrike, already twice the size of this one, and likely to expand further over time as the untold story of what actually happened there comes out in coming weeks, months, or years, and likely will become an iconic symbol of this war. It seems unlikely this article will ever expand much from its current state, or that it will receive much more coverage than it already has. The fact that HRW increases the reliability of the sourcing is wonderful for the verifiability of the article, but has no effect on whether the topic meets the threshold of WP:PAGEDECIDE, which I  believe it does not for the reasons given. Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, and Battle of Irpin isn't so big either, so a merge might be beneficial for both articles. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This incident is starting to get additional focus due to the photo taken by Lynsey Addario showing the 4 persons killed by the mortar strike at the intersection, including 2 children. The photo appeared on the front page of the New York Times on the 7 March and today the ABC Australia featured the photo in a story about War crimes.  So I believe the incident warrents its own page.  If oossible it would be good if we could display the photo in the article.  Ilenart626 (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Human Right Watch Statement “Both sides of this conflict have an obligation…”
I have recently made edits to this page, which My very best wishes has deleted. In particular I believe the section below, which quotes the concluding statement from the HRW report, should be included. This is one of the few incidents where independent observers (New York Times reporters) were present and highlighted that Ukraine forces were firing a morter 200m from the intersection. As the HRW reports states, Ukraine forces have an obligation to avoid operating from an area where civilians are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities. Hence I believe the statement below should be included, as it is highlighting that both Russian and Ukraine forces have obligations to minimise civilian casualties. Seeking input from other editors to reach a consensus. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

HRW concluded that "Both sides in this conflict have an obligation to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian harm and to allow the civilian population to evacuate safely...International investigations should send a message to those responsible for reckless, indiscriminate attacks that they could one day face justice.”


 * Yes, sure, it tells it. But this is a duplicate content because the page already includes the following: " HRW also stated "The Ukrainian forces also have an obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm. Such precautions include avoiding operating from an area where civilians and civilian objects are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities." If you wish, this can be rephrased, but this should be summarized very briefly  My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. My apology, I was looking at the HRW article too quickly. There is another problem. The cited HRW article first tells specifically about this incident, but then switch to another, more general subject, i.e. "Over the past several days, Russian and Ukrainian forces have held talks to discuss opening safe routes of evacuation for civilians in areas across Ukraine..." and so on. Then it debates the "laws of war" in general and the texts cited above appears. What they say in that part is NOT about this specific incident and therefore does not belong to this page. You can cite it in another more general page about rules of war if you wish. This all should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As was written, that created wrong impression the sited source(s) accuse the Ukrainian military of civilians being killed in this specific incident. Actually, it blamed solely the Russian military. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the edits you are making. It seems to me you are deliberately removing information that puts Ukraine on a bad light.
 * On this edit you remove "whilst a Ukrainian artillery position was located nearby". Why?
 * As written, the relevance of that was not clear. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How could possibly having a military objective nearby during an attack not be relevant?
 * And could you please cite any of the claims you said the source makes? Thanks. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that was relevant, but it must be explained why. Sources tells that the Ukrainian military forces were located in a different place. But instead of shooting at the Ukrainian military forces, Russian forces shoot at the Ukrainian civilians. As written, that was not clear. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On this one you claim excessive quotation, but remove a critically important part of the quote, which even changes the meaning of the quote. Without that part you removed, someone could understand that the civilians were the objective of the attack.
 * Yes, the civilians were the intended target of attack based on the description of this story in RS.My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There I am not saying they weren't, there I am saying that you are intentionally changing a quote in a way which changes its meaning. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, here, you change the way it is written on the source to again give the impression that the civilians were the objective, don't fix an error that is clearly not part of the source, and even more so, on your next edit state that Russian forces repeatedly hit the intersection, when the source says "a projectile hit the intersection or the surrounding area every 10 minutes". Seems like a small significant detail, except when you consider that Ukrainian forces were in said surrounding area firing mortar rounds.
 * Source tells that the Ukrainian military forces were located in a different place. But instead of shooting at the Ukrainian military forces, Russian forces shoted at the Ukrainian civilians. So, yes, the civilians were the intended target of attack by Russian forces based on the description of this story in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been very hard keeping articles related to the Ukraine war in accordance with WP:NPOV, and this seriously doesn't help. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, I disagree with your interpretation that the HRW article is not referring to the Refugee column shelling when they are talking about Ukraine’s responsibilities. Ukraine forces were firing a mortar 200m away from the intersection which is why they raised Ukraine responsibilities.  Also please do not make any further changes to his article until we reach consensus Ilenart626 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Refer comments in next section “More sources”, I believe @Gitz6666 edits now provide WP:NPOV, happy to here other editors’ views Ilenart626 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

More sources

 * Perhaps we need use more sources here, such as Russian forces fire on evacuees, leaving 4 people dead outside Kyiv. (NYT):
 * "Crowds of hundreds have clustered around the damaged bridge over the Irpin River since Saturday. Ukrainian forces had blown up the bridge earlier to slow the Russian advance. Only a dozen or so Ukrainian soldiers were in the immediate area of the bridge on Sunday, not fighting but helping carry civilians’ luggage and children. To cross a hundred yards or so of exposed street on the side of the bridge closer to Kyiv, people seeking to flee to the capital formed small groups and made a run for it together. Soldiers ran out, picked up children or luggage, and ran for cover behind a cinder block wall.
 * "As the mortars got closer to the stream of civilians, people ran, pulling children, trying to find a safe spot. But there was nothing to hide behind. A shell landed in the street, sending up a cloud of concrete dust and leaving one family — a woman, her teenage son and a her daughter, who appeared to be about 8 years old; and a family friend — sprawled on the ground.Soldiers rushed to help, but the woman and children were dead. A man traveling with them still had a pulse but was unconscious and severely wounded. He later died."
 * "Ukrainian forces were engaged in clashes nearby, but not at the site where civilians were moving along the street. Outgoing mortar rounds could be heard from a Ukrainian position about 200 yards away."


 * More sources;.


 * Now, this story has a continuation:
 * "Tatiana Perebeinis, who was killed on Sunday along with her children Alisa, 9, and 18-year-old Nikita, had waited as long as she could in Irpin to stay by her sick mother's side."
 * Silicon Valley tech worker was the Ukrainian mom lying dead on street in brutal photo that sparked outrage, ,, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources are always welcome. I am not military expert, and I do not want to engage on WP:OR, but Ukrainian forces firing from ~200 yards away seems highly relevant to this article. As far as my knowledge knows, mortar isn't a high precision weapon, and Ukrainian forces may have inadvertently endangered civilian lives. As stated by HRW, "The Ukrainian forces also have an obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm. Such precautions include avoiding operating from an area where civilians and civilian objects are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities". I feel this should clearly be stated and explained on the article, which isn't right now after your edits. In any case, we may be in need of getting a third opinion (or fourth). WP:3O --AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As explained above, this quotation is not about this specific shelling (it is about the obligations by the sides in general), hence it should not be cited. As phrased, it creates wrong impression that Ukrainian forces did NOT "take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm". But the source does not say it at all. To the contrary, this and other RS put the blame on the Russian forces in this specific incident. That could be different in other incidents, by they are not subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read carefully the reports by HRW and by the New York Times, and I also read the excruciating portrait of the poor family by the San Francisco Chronicle: I'm deeply saddened. I think that we should stick to the RS without overinterpreting. If they tell us that there was an Ukrainian mortar 200 yards away, well it might be relevant; if HRW says "The Ukrainian forces also have an obligation to take all feasible precautions...", I don't see why we shouldn't report that they deem it relevant: "HRW stated etc." So, I don't agree with most of the "negative" edits by MVBW but I agree with their "positive" one: indeed HRW says that the Ukrainian security force members were there to help, not to fight, and we should say so. Plus, I'd add that following two info, which may be of some relevance: 1) According to HRW, the Russians were "observing" the projectiles and could have avoided the casualties; 2) No specific agreements have been reached between the parties to date about a temporary ceasefire or humanitarian corridor for civilians seeking to flee from northern Ukraine. I'm now going to edit the article accordingly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, welcome. Please check all sources above in this section. They provide a lot of info. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done my best, but I didn't find the time to check the sources in this page - sorry. But please, feel free to improve the text, add all the sources you want (if reliable), correct my mediocre English (not my mother tongue) but let us all refrain from removing information and repeatedly override each other's edits. Plus, a bit less "bold" than usual here might be desirable. If there are issues, let's discuss and seek consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 thanks for your edits, have made a few minor changes (my mother tongue is Australian, close enough to English) I agree that the article now reflects the HRW report and other RS and reflect a WP:NPOV, happy to have comments from others Ilenart626 (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah, I've heard it's quite close to the English language ;-) Thank you Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes I've just added some of the sources you provided on the family that died in the attack. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

HRW quote
About my last edit, two things: I added the rest of the quote, as I feel splitting the sentence gives two very different meanings. Each part has a different meaning when read alone, so I feel all should be included. Also, perhaps we are over quotating? I would just remove the quotation marks. Let me know what you think. (Edit: By the way thanks for all the work, article is starting to look much better) --AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Russian forces violated their obligations under international humanitarian law not to conduct indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks that harm civilians"
 * "Russian forces failed to take all feasible measures to avoid civilian casualties"


 * I think your edits looks fine & its a direct quote from the report, so quotation marks are appropriate. Thanks for your efforts, agree the article is looking good Ilenart626 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you for having completed the quotation, and I'd leave the quotation marks unless one wants to use a (rather difficult, I guess) paraphrase of the text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 31 March 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) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg