Jump to content

Talk:World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 225: Line 225:
:::::This is already covered in the investigations section. There are dependencies on the imaging system which is why both Bellingcat and the BBC include caveats. Only the IDF know what they could actually see or whether it mattered. Apparently a deconfliction arrangement to coordinate movements did not matter. A BBC journalist was shown footage by the IDF and could not see the logo. That does not tell you anything about what the IDF could actually see or whether it made any difference. Also, the statement "although it was not visible to IDF drones at night" is written as a statement of fact which is a bit of a weird thing to do given that it is obviously not an objective established fact of the matter or necessarily even relevant. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is already covered in the investigations section. There are dependencies on the imaging system which is why both Bellingcat and the BBC include caveats. Only the IDF know what they could actually see or whether it mattered. Apparently a deconfliction arrangement to coordinate movements did not matter. A BBC journalist was shown footage by the IDF and could not see the logo. That does not tell you anything about what the IDF could actually see or whether it made any difference. Also, the statement "although it was not visible to IDF drones at night" is written as a statement of fact which is a bit of a weird thing to do given that it is obviously not an objective established fact of the matter or necessarily even relevant. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::It should be covered at any point the logos are mentioned because the implication of saying "the vehicle had visible logos" means that it was visible and was still targeted. We don't know this and so it misleads the reader. Very strange to say that its not "necessarily even relevant". Saying that "the deconfliction arrangement did not matter" assumes that the IDF knew that the vehicles were WCK vehicles, which is what is at issue. The drone footage is what the drone operator sees. It sounds like you believe that there may have been tampering with the video that was presented to the BBC. I do not see that caveat in the article that I cited. Where is this skepticism coming from. I could not find it from any source from doing a quick search. I would also wonder what possible evidence can the IDF provide that would convince you that their drone operators could not see the markings? I will concede your last point that it should say "although videos provided by the IDF to the BBC appear to show that the WCK markings were not visible to their drone operators at night" - to acknowledge that this has not been fully established. [[User:Bradley1980|Bradley1980]] ([[User talk:Bradley1980|talk]]) 01:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::It should be covered at any point the logos are mentioned because the implication of saying "the vehicle had visible logos" means that it was visible and was still targeted. We don't know this and so it misleads the reader. Very strange to say that its not "necessarily even relevant". Saying that "the deconfliction arrangement did not matter" assumes that the IDF knew that the vehicles were WCK vehicles, which is what is at issue. The drone footage is what the drone operator sees. It sounds like you believe that there may have been tampering with the video that was presented to the BBC. I do not see that caveat in the article that I cited. Where is this skepticism coming from. I could not find it from any source from doing a quick search. I would also wonder what possible evidence can the IDF provide that would convince you that their drone operators could not see the markings? I will concede your last point that it should say "although videos provided by the IDF to the BBC appear to show that the WCK markings were not visible to their drone operators at night" - to acknowledge that this has not been fully established. [[User:Bradley1980|Bradley1980]] ([[User talk:Bradley1980|talk]]) 01:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You are asking us to modify the "incident" section which is so far covering established facts agreed by most reliable sources. Adding IDF's one-sided claims in this section is out of place. It is your own problem that you can't see the skeptism placed on the IDF. The WCK stated before and after the publication of the IDF's initial investigation that they don't trust the IDF's abilities to investigate their own failures. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 02:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::When I said "what was told by the IDF" I also intended to mean "what was presented by the IDF to BBC". It is just so very easy to blur or changing video image contrast to obscure the WCK logo on their vehicles. Again we don't trust IDF's claims, neither does the WCK. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 01:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::When I said "what was told by the IDF" I also intended to mean "what was presented by the IDF to BBC". It is just so very easy to blur or changing video image contrast to obscure the WCK logo on their vehicles. Again we don't trust IDF's claims, neither does the WCK. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 01:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


Revision as of 02:01, 7 April 2024

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 15:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Makeandtoss (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 37 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My objection is now outdated. Events and sources are moving. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Objection - the content in the hook three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone cannot be presented in Wikivoice using this Haaretz source, which said that the information comes from Israeli defense sources. Haaretz has not independently reported the information (without attribution). starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: The same material has been covered in RS including NYT, Al Jazeera, BBC, and Bellingcat; and in visual investigations not just reporting articles. All RS have provided the same information about three missiles being shot. I don't see why information from RS requires attribution, especially given that all these RS agree on the same exact point. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They agree on the same point, but they don’t seem to have independently verified it. Perhaps something like “three separate vehicles” will be closer to having verified coverage? FortunateSons (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: They did verify it themselves -i.e independently- using visual data, please read the Bellingcat, AJ and BBC investigations. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source article links please. starship.paint (RUN) 10:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: - you are assuming too much of the sources. (1) Bellingcat does not say three consecutive strikes, they simply say Israeli airstrike, Bellingcat cannot confirm that it was missiles or that they were even fired by a drone: Although not possible to be certain without fragments of the munition itself, the WCK vehicles bear the hallmarks of a precision strike by inert or low-yield missiles ... In order to successfully accomplish a laser guided strike it is necessary for a platform, such as a drone, to “illuminate” the target with a laser while the missile is launched. (2) BBC writes that the evidence suggests there was more than one strike, but this is not confirmation, BBC's experts also do not confirm that it was a drone strike: Chris Cobb-Smith, a former British Army officer and ex-UN weapons inspector, said the attack was probably the result of drone-launched Spike missiles ... Justin Crump, a former British Army officer who runs Sibylline - a risk intelligence company - agreed. He says the attack "was likely drone-launched and targeted". He added the strike had probably been caused by a missile, rather than a bomb or mortar. (3) Al Jazeera goes the furthest, their article text says The shelling targeted three vehicles belonging to WCK, one at a time, but if you read the article text, there is no mention of drone missiles, instead they say: Analysis of images of the second and third targeted vehicles showed signs of a projectile entering from the top and exiting through the bottom, suggesting that the cars were targeted from the air. Now, Al Jazeera's image does mention "drone strikes" and missiles, but I find it peculiar that they didn't mention (or even attempt to explain) it in the article text. The sources are simply weaker than you portray them to be. None of them confirm, all of them are simply suggesting / probably / likely etc. starship.paint (RUN) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest some edits to the hook to make it clearer what happened? I'd suggest something like Humanitarian and aid organizations suspended their operations in the Gaza Strip after seven World Central Kitchen aid workers were killed when their marked cars on a preapproved route were bombed by Israeli drones. I think its really important to make clear they were in marked cars, they were also on a route approved by the Israeli military. Makeandtoss what do you think? Also have any additional sources been published that would resolve the dissagreement above? If not maybe a third party could be involved to help resolve if the sourcing meets Wikipedia's rules. John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is also nominated at ITN. It can only reach the main page through one of the possible venues. At this point, there isn't consensus to post to ITN, but that can change. Schwede66 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: @John Cummings: Thanks for commenting. Starship.paint, building on our discussion on the talk page, I think we can both agree to this ALT1 version: ... that the attack on World Central Kitchen convoy in the Gaza Strip, which killed seven aid workers, was likely a result of three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything more than what starship.paint and John Cummings have said. Any hook we run on this topic should be widely supported across a cross section of media, and be independently verified. Otherwise its likely to be challenged at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. We need a hook that won't get pulled. John made some good suggestions.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss, 4meter4, John Cummings, and Narutolovehinata5: I've hatted my objection above due to recent events: the IDF's admission, which I believe supports this hook: starship.paint (RUN) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)@FortunateSons: - forgot to ping. starship.paint (RUN) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Thanks for the ping, I agree that the objection is now out of date. FortunateSons (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that the Israel Defense Forces have accepted responsibility for killing seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in targeted drone strikes that destroyed the aid workers' cars, one by one? Source 1: Associated Press Source 2: CBS News Source 3: BBC News starship.paint (RUN) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with this as long as there are no objections to featuring violent content at DYK. There has been some pushback of late against featuring potentially disturbing hooks. That said, this hook appears to have wide support in media, and is so widely reported I don’t think an argument for censoring would be successful.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our main page constantly features potentially disturbing content, so I don't see why this can't be, either. Right now, our ITN section: A severe earthquake strikes near Hualien City, Taiwan ... In Syria, an Israeli airstrike kills 16 people at the Iranian consulate in Damascus, including brigadier general Mohammad Reza Zahedi ... A bus falls from a bridge in Limpopo, South Africa, killing 45 people ... The Francis Scott Key Bridge in the U.S. city of Baltimore collapses after being hit by a container ship. starship.paint (RUN) 06:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK and ITN have different goals. In addition, the issues with IP hooks have never really been about violence but rather tone and POV. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might consider, is the problem Wikipedia's "tone and POV", or does the event inherently make one side look bad? I'd say the answer is provided by the BBC: There are also moments, like the last few days in the Middle East, when events leave belligerents and their allies at a crossroads with big decisions to make ... The killing of foreign aid workers in Gaza might finally exhaust the considerable patience of Israel's allies, led by the United States. and Reuters: the killing of a group of aid workers by an Israeli air strike summed up both the dire humanitarian crisis and the lack of a clear way out of a conflict that is leaving Israel increasingly isolated. The attack on Monday night that killed seven staff of the World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid group, including six foreigners, has angered even some of Israel's closest allies, adding to growing pressure for an end to the fighting. starship.paint (RUN) 07:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: ALT2 doesn't really sound interesting, but more like a news headline; do you have any other alternatives? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss I don't think it's going to be possible to run a different kind of hook without being accused of trivializing the event. This would probably pull the hook into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Optics for an event like this are going to force us to keep the main event front and center in the hook. As such I don't see there being any meaningfully different hooks passing DYK review. Alt2 is probably our best option.4meter4 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admission to killing seven aid workers in targeted strikes ... not interesting?! It is no less interesting than the originally proposed hook, Makeandtoss. starship.paint (RUN) 12:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: @4meter4: If there is support for ALT2 then I would go for it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving hook ALT2 per WP:CONSENSUS opinion. Article appears to be compliant with all DYK review criteria (newness, length, inline citations, NPOV, etc.) Hook fact is widely supported and independently verified in many sources. Promoter will need to check whether this gets featured at ITN. If it does, we can't feature it at DYK because it will have already been on the main page.4meter4 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. This article has been moved twice in the last 24 hours. It should probably stabilise first.--Launchballer 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, the Israeli explanation of events hasn't been fully added to the article. I didn't have time to do it yesterday. But, I can probably add it now. starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is stable and was moved without consensus. As for the Israeli explanation of events, its already in the article, the expansion of it doesn't affect moving forward with the DYK anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss Page moves whether with or without consensus are a clear sign of instability. I would suggest not getting in a back and forth over issues like this, because if you argue its only likely to tank the DYK approval. @Launchballer I hear you, but from a DYK reviewer standpoint this is ready to go. There's nothing more on our checklist for the reviewer to do, and the nominee has done everything they need to do. Obviously, the promoter will need to evaluate stability because it is a current event. Due to the backlog there will be a natural signigicant delay anyway before this gets put into prep. I think it best that we leave it to the promoter to determine when its stable enough to move it into the queue. That's not something we need to worry about from the DYK evaluator standpoint. We can trust in the promoting admin to evaluate that. If it hangs out in the approved hook area for a while everything should be fine.4meter4 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: There is no back and forth here; I reverted the latest page move because it was undiscussed and because multiple editors on the talk page agreed as well. The article is stable but one or two more days of waiting will not hurt as you said. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Makeandtoss, the article's Israeli explanation is incomplete. This will become apparent when I add the content (I am writing it right now). starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of you need to quit or I will have to pull the DYK tick. The article has had some instability issues as is typical of a current event. The article is likely to be edited heavily as new information is released. Any promoting admin will need to monitor the stability of the article before promoting. This means that if there are content disputes, edit wars, page moves, etc. the article will have to remain in the approved section until all that settles. I would suggest a minimum of two weeks of calm (ie no content reversions in the article's editing history, no arguments on the talk page, no page moves) before the article is featured at DYK. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the concerns about stability above and the other issues, it probably wouldn't be safe to mark this as approved until at least a couple of weeks from now. Once the article has stabilized, it can probably be given a fresh look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Have your concerns been assuaged?--Launchballer 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article has stabilized then, yes, this is ready for a fresh review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and Narutolovehinata5 currently tagged for a formal title change discussion. Stability is therefore still an issue. I don't think this needs a formal re-review. I already did a competent review. Someone just needs to check for stability and once that has been established, Alt2 can be ticked.4meter4 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a prolonged discussion resulting in a move, I think it is safe to say that the article is now stable. Hook edited accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewer needed now that article has stabilized and the hooks reflect the new article name. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If stability is the only barrier and this has now stabilised, then this is good to go.--Launchballer 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Lead

The current lead is relatively good, but there is some redundant repetition and phrasing. To make the lead more impactful, how about this

On 1 April 2024, seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers were killed by Israeli forces when three of their marked cars were destroyed by three consecutive drone missiles at the cars, despite travelling on a path "preapproved and coordinated" by the Israeli military.

The workers had been distributing food in Deir al-Balah in the northern Gaza Strip, which is experiencing an ongoing famine caused by Israel's siege and blockade during the Israel–Hamas war. Survivors of the first strike alerted the IDF, moving to the next car, which was then hit by a second missile. The wounded were carried to the third car, which was in turn struck by a further missile. All seven aid workers were killed.

The attack led to widespread condemnnation by countries around the world. The Israeli military acknowledged responsibility for the incident, claiming it was unintentional. This is denied by the WCK, and investigations by Bellingcat, BBC Verify, Al-Jazeera Sanad and CNN show a picture consistent with intentional targetting of multiple strikes. WCK and other humanitarian and aid organizations operating in the Gaza Strip suspended their operations after the attack.

This would be a shorter and clearer lead while keeping all relevant content. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, J. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, just a few comments: I am in favor of changing to "their marked cars were targeted by..." in the first sentence since this is supported by a large number of RS; and removing the quotes on the "preapproved and coordinated" while rephrasing it. Also the denial part should be completely rephrased to: "However, investigations by Bellingcat,.......... have described the strikes as targeted multiple attacks." Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That currently sounds like we are saying their cars were targeted because they had WCK markings on them, rather than despite that fact. WCK did not 'deny' that the attacks were unintentional - they wouldn't know that. The cars were apparently carefully and precisely targeted, but that does not mean or imply that they were targeted because they were WCK cars, that was presumably what was unintentional. We need make sure we keep it neutral and impartial so it cannot be interpreted as favouring one side's account over the other's. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! Makeandtoss I'm all in favor of the changes you suggested to my proposal. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: Thank you, can you please implement this consensus? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Wikipedia should imply that the cars were targeted "despite" possessing the WCK's markings? Leaving aside how statistically improbable it is that the IDF would "accidentally" bomb those three specific cars, one after another, out of dozens of cars that were on that route, and leaving aside also that the IDF knew of their location and who were the people inside, and that the survivors of the first bombing contacted the IDF about what had just happened to them -- leaving aside all that, there's also the uncomfortable fact that it is Israel's policy, publicly formulated by high officials and acknowledged by the ICJ, to generate hunger in the Palestinian population of Gaza and hamper the entrance of aid into the territory. Killing aid workers is consistent with such policy, and Israel has already killed 200 such workers in the last few months (the highest number of aid workers ever killed in a modern war) before the seven WCK aid workers it killed more recently. If common sense and journalistic investigations all point to the same direction, that this was an intentional attack, then this is what Wikipedia should acknowledge. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have some cheek in removing this entry from the "war crimes by Israel" category, sand say that such description is inconsistent with the contents of the entry. How would you classify this particular mass killing? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz This looks much better. Indeed it makes clear that WCK has never accused Israeli forces of dolus directus intent.
What's 'dolus directus' got to do with the price of fish? The IDF admitted that it had killed 7 aid workers because of an 'unfortunate' impression that accompanying them was 1 Hamas guard. I.e. they knowingly killed the aid workers because they were given (as other articles testify now) operational discretion to kill 12 civilians or more if they could ascertain that among them (in an apartment or elsewhere) one Hamas operative, even of a 'low grade'. The remarkable thing about this is that it is the first time someone within the IDF (perhaps unwittingly) has provided testimony that orders have allowed them since Oct 7 to violate one of the fundamental law of proportionality, and therefore enabled officially to commit what is defined as a war crime. (this emerges from the testimony given by soldier technicians in the chilling the Guardian and +972 articles. The IDF's hasbara managers have clearly lost the plot.)Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my remark is rhetorical, i.e. no need to answer. You are not an extended-confirmed editor, having just 123 edits.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Is your concern about the omission in the proposed lead that the three strikes were fired with the death of the WCK workers as a desired consequence? A better formulation would be "The Israeli military acknowledged responsibility for the deaths, claiming it was unintended. WCK's claim about the convoy being precisely targeted multiple times is corroborated by investigations from Bellingcat, BBC Verify, al-Jazeera and CNN". Y. Dongchen (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR, non EC editors can only file edit requests :::I am sorry. Did not intend to argue. In the ICC context of IHL, there are three basic types of mens rea: [reply]

  • dolus directus: someone commits an act resulting in a crime, with the specific desire of inflicting that crime
  • dolus indirectus: someone commits an act resulting in a crime, with the knowledge that it will quite certainly result in that crime, but treating it as an unintended consequence
  • dolus eventualis: someone commits an act resulting in a crime, without being ignorant to a substantial risk that it will result in the crime
So that's what I meant by "dolus directus". Y. Dongchen (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR, non EC editors can only file edit requests[reply]
  • @Jeppiz: - we need to retain attribution of Haaretz citing Israeli defense sources in the lede for destroyed by three consecutive drone missiles at the cars, despite travelling on a path "preapproved and coordinated" by the Israeli military. It can’t be in Wikivoice unless Haaretz stops attributing and is reporting independently with their own confirmation. If anyone objects, I invite them to link here a reliable source reporting this without attribution. starship.paint (RUN) 06:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: The same claim has been made and verified by numerous other RS including NYT, Al Jazeera, BBC and Bellingcat. There is no need for attribution for a universally accepted fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Makeandtoss: - you claim this but link to zero sources. Please provide links to these articles. starship.paint (RUN) 10:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: They are in the article [4], [5], [6]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim about multiple strikes should be taken as fact – as Makeandtoss says, it is the understanding of Bellingcat's analysis and BBC Verify. It would be absurd to only treat something as fact when Israeli authorities admit it themselves.
    Regarding the "preapproved and coordinated path" – can be reformulated as "when travelling on a path that was (according to WCK) preapproved by Israel. Y. Dongchen (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR, non EC editors can only file edit requests[reply]
    Too much is being assumed of the sources. (1) Bellingcat does not say three consecutive strikes, they simply say Israeli airstrike, Bellingcat cannot confirm that it was missiles or that they were even fired by a drone: Although not possible to be certain without fragments of the munition itself, the WCK vehicles bear the hallmarks of a precision strike by inert or low-yield missiles ... In order to successfully accomplish a laser guided strike it is necessary for a platform, such as a drone, to “illuminate” the target with a laser while the missile is launched. (2) BBC writes that the evidence suggests there was more than one strike, but this is not confirmation, BBC's experts also do not confirm that it was a drone strike: Chris Cobb-Smith, a former British Army officer and ex-UN weapons inspector, said the attack was probably the result of drone-launched Spike missiles ... Justin Crump, a former British Army officer who runs Sibylline - a risk intelligence company - agreed. He says the attack "was likely drone-launched and targeted". He added the strike had probably been caused by a missile, rather than a bomb or mortar. (3) Al Jazeera goes the furthest, their article text says The shelling targeted three vehicles belonging to WCK, one at a time, but if you read the article text, there is no mention of drone missiles, instead they say: Analysis of images of the second and third targeted vehicles showed signs of a projectile entering from the top and exiting through the bottom, suggesting that the cars were targeted from the air. Now, Al Jazeera's image does mention "drone strikes" and missiles, but I find it peculiar that they didn't mention (or even attempt to explain) it in the article text. The sources are simply weaker than portrayed them to be. None of them confirm, all of them are simply suggesting / probably / likely etc. starship.paint (RUN) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have CNN with:
    "Explosive weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith told CNN on Tuesday that the strikes appeared to have been carried out by an Israeli drone. Cobb-Smith, a former British Army artillery officer and munitions expert, said the heavy damage to the three vehicles was consistent with the use of “highly accurate drone fired missiles,” adding it was “hard to believe” the tragic incident was an accident." and ".....The “limited blast” and “considerable localized destruction” seen in photos and videos of the aftermath are also consistent with an Israeli UAV strike, he added. Cobb-Smith told CNN missile fragments would be needed to definitively identify the exact munition used in the strike." while
    "Patrick Senft, a research coordinator at Armament Research Services (ARES), told CNN: “without munition fragments, I can’t say anything for certain, but the damage to the vehicles appears consistent with precision guided munitions with a small explosive payload.” Senft added that the aftermath of the strike “seems consistent with munitions deployed by UAVs."
    but CNN in their own voice merely says "appears to have consisted of multiple precision strikes, a CNN analysis of aftermath videos and images found".
    All in all, I think we could safely say "experts" and "likely", pending fragment analysis to be certain? Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding that, Selfstudier. Funnily enough, BBC and CNN interviewed the same expert, Cobb-Smith, so we're at a total of three named experts, him, Crump and Senft. Stating "likely" would be a positive step forward. starship.paint (RUN) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add on, quotes require attribution, so we cannot have "preapproved and coordinated" without attribution. starship.paint (RUN) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an assumption that there were three strikes. AJ has already done a preliminary investigation and the three cars were hit separately. The possibility of more than three strikes has been raised however. Israeli fancruft also reporting three missiles from a drone. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323: - your "Israeli fancruft" are reposting Haaretz, which itself cited Israeli defense sources. Your possibility of more than three strikes was raised by the World Central Kitchen founder, not by Reuters itself. The content reported from the Reuters article is mainly attributed to the World Central Kitchen founder. starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem like the three drone strikes is controversial information. All sources seem to agree. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to agree, but why don't the reliable sources actually explicitly say it? Only Al Jazeera does, in a picture, not even in article text. The reliable sources, in general, simply can't confirm it. Our job is not to get ahead of sources. starship.paint (RUN) 13:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: Okay then in this case we have RS universally agreeing they were three strikes in three locations, and that they were likely by a drone. We can add "likely" to the drone part only, and this would not require attribution since this has been reported by multiple RS. This would be the middle ground solution. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Makeandtoss: - I do not think the RS universally agree, I think some did not make a conclusion on that. That said, given that the IDF did already admit and apologise for the attack, I would suggest a first sentence of: On 1 April 2024, seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers were killed when three of their marked cars were destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces, with three drone missiles being the likely weapons. starship.paint (RUN) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: Their cars were not "destroyed," they were targeted and struck by three consecutive missiles fired by Israeli forces, a likely drone; as RS with their own independent investigations have universally demonstrated. There is no other RS with its own investigation that came up with an opposing view. There is no need to attribute what most RS with their own investigations have said. I am looking forward to you putting out a reasonable compromise as I have already done. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Makeandtoss: - opposing views are not needed, if RS are unsure, so are we. I've re-read the content from Bellingcat, Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and I find that this is the common view: On 1 April 2024, seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers were killed when three of their marked cars were attacked by the Israeli Defense Forces, which likely used multiple precision strikes of drone missiles. starship.paint (RUN) 14:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: RS are only not 100% sure on one detail that it was fired from a drone, but they are sure they were multiple precision strikes which is also evidenced by the geolocations. We should keep Israeli military in general in case the perpetrator turns out to be the IAF or some other armed body of the Israeli state. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually a strike is called in by someone, I don't think we know who at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: I disagree that RS are 100% sure on precision strikes. It is apparent from the hedged quotes of Bellingcat: bear the hallmarks of a precision strike, and CNN: appears to have consisted of multiple precision strikes. Rephrased On 1 April 2024, seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers were killed when three of their marked cars were attacked by Israeli military forces, which likely used multiple precision strikes of drone missiles. starship.paint (RUN) 14:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: the CNN source by saying appears is referring to “multiple precision” and not just “multiple”. The fact that the three cars were hit by three missiles in three different locations one after the other is universally accepted as fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: - you keep throwing out phrases like universally accepted as fact but you have provided zero quotes. Show me some quotes from reliable sources. Prove that the sources say what you think they say. starship.paint (RUN) 15:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: You already quoted them and it is glaringly obvious that they were three cars targeted in three different locations seen by Bellingcat’s geolocations and Al Jazeera’s explicit phrasing: “The shelling targeted three vehicles belonging to WCK, one at a time.” Please let’s not waste time discussing things that are glaringly obvious. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat's geolocations are … just that. It’s SYNTHESIS to assume more than what is written. If Bellingcat clearly said three strikes, one by one, that would be satisfactory. But it is not said. We’re not supposed to piece the puzzle together. We’re supposed to let the sources report fully and then cite them. starship.paint (RUN) 05:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be a little bit cautious, we can always update if needed, it is imo noteworthy that Israel is being very close mouthed about the details. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What date are these sources from? Because those older and closest to the event are carrying less and less weight. Those from before the AJ report are now very dated. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is up to date, BBC Verify is continuing to update its report, here is a new one from NYT. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. NYT repeatedly says Israeli strikes, but then says Videos and photos verified by The New York Times suggested that the convoy had been hit several times. starship.paint (RUN) 05:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF has admitted three drone strikes, one by one. [7] starship.paint (RUN) 14:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: So now we can agree on removing likely? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Please self-revert your latest change to the article; this is not the version we have been discussing and agreeing on. IDF admission and communications and misidentification excuses are not appropriate for the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can remove likely. But, events have quickly passed since the last version was discussed. The IDF have admitted to exactly what we discussed (On 1 April 2024, targeted Israeli drone strikes killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers, who were travelling in three of the WCK's cars in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) admitted to the killings, stating that their drone operators fired three missiles at the WCK's cars, destroying the cars one by one, despite some surviving aid workers transferring between the cars in an attempt to escape. The IDF also admitted that WCK did coordinate their plans for the night with the IDF.) I have already removed the so-called excuses. starship.paint (RUN) 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: If both WCK and the IDF admitted to the same thing, then we do not need attribution in the opening paragraph to say that the IDF was so gracious to "admit" that they killed seven innocent aid workers and that the WCK had indeed coordinated the path with them. Let's remove attribution for universally accepted facts from the opening paragraph, which must be kept as general as possible per MOS. The IDF's narrative and the opposing narrative by news agencies should be in third paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason why it is attributed is because the reliable sources are attributing it. It is not for us to decide, it is the reliable sources. Once reliable sources report in their own voice, then we do not need to. starship.paint (RUN) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latest BBC Verify Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: In addition to the BBC verify source above, that's not true. They were attributing it to the IDF in the context of its investigation. There other articles attributing the same information to the WCK in the context of their own statement. Note that this also presents a neutrality issue: WP:INTEXT

Makeandtoss (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: given this AP report, I have reworked a sentence to: The attack occurred in spite of WCK having coordinated their plans for the night with the IDF, both parties acknowledged. starship.paint (RUN) 02:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024


Make the Scottish entry in the International reactions section a sub-entry of the United Kingdom entry, as Scotland forms part of the United Kingdom. 

i.e. move " * Scotland − First minister Humza Yousaf called for an immediate end to arms sales from the UK to Israel, saying "The civilian death toll is intolerable, as is the killing of humanitarian workers who deliver vital aid to Palestinians facing starvation and violence at the hands of this Israeli government. By not stopping arms sales to Israel, the UK is in danger of being complicit in the killing of innocent civilians."" to be under the United Kingdom entry "* United Kingdom − Foreign minister David Cameron called on Israel to provide a transparent explanation for the attack, while Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says he is "shocked and saddened" by the killing of at least one British volunteer during the attack. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Israeli ambassador.", like so

"* United Kingdom − Foreign minister David Cameron called on Israel to provide a transparent explanation for the attack, while Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says he is "shocked and saddened" by the killing of at least one British volunteer during the attack. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Israeli ambassador.

  • Scotland − First minister Humza Yousaf called for an immediate end to arms sales from the UK to Israel, saying "The civilian death toll is intolerable, as is the killing of humanitarian workers who deliver vital aid to Palestinians facing starvation and violence at the hands of this Israeli government. By not stopping arms sales to Israel, the UK is in danger of being complicit in the killing of innocent civilians.""

Younotmenotyou (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done: I do not think it's necessary to go out of our way to make Scotland a sub-bullet of the United Kingdom in this particular list. While it does form part of the United Kingdom, it is still a country, so I see no reason to have it's reaction be a sub-bullet to other countries such as Egypt or Belgium. —Sirdog (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel dismissal

Please add that the IDF has now dismissed people responsible for the attack.

"The IDF said it had dismissed a brigade chief of staff with the rank of colonel and a brigade fire support officer with the rank of major and issued formal reprimands to senior officers including the general at the head of the southern command."

There's also some new information about how this may have happened.

"It criticised officers for failing to read messages alerting troops that cars, not aid trucks, would carry workers from the charity away from the warehouse where aid was distributed. As a result, the targeted cars were misidentified as transporting militants."

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/05/israeli-inquiry-blames-wck-aid-killings-on-grave-errors-by-military-personnel Feaulte (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they didn't dismiss those responsible for the attack. This is just one of several hundred cases where numerous groups of civilians have been bombed in order to kill one or some people identified as affiliated with Hamas. Since the operative rules allow a dozen Gazan civilians to be killed as collateral damage, and since interviews indicate that the decision to proceed with an A1 identified potential target, evaluate it and then press or not the button to kill takes on average 20-30 seconds, it is the system that is responsible, not individuals. Just one of the group of 7 was identified as a Gazan, and the same procedure was applied. The identities of those in the cars was known before the button was pressed.

The communications director for the United Nations aid agency Unrwa, Juliette Touma, also shed light on the “intense” coordination that routinely occurred with Israeli authorities prior to aid deliveries. The process is known as “deconfliction”. “Only when they give us the approval do we move – and before we move we provide the Israeli authorities with quite a lot of detail,” Touma told ABC Radio National.“We include the names and nationalities of the team that is travelling on the convoy, the content of the convoy, the number of vehicles that we are sending on that convoy, the route of that convoy including GPS coordinates with the Israeli authorities.”

The only 'error' was that the collateral victims were 'whites'/non-Arabs associated with a prestigious international organization. Had, as so often in the past, the cars contained several Gazans helping in food distribution, there would have been no outcry. Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could well be but I don't think that is specifically sourced at this point? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This investigation is still an important aspect to Israel's response to the attack. The phrase "those responsible" doesn't have to be added into the article, but it should be noted that "some people" were dismissed in response to the attack at least.
I'm not trying to debate with you. I don't think it was an error either, but the source I linked details an investigation which reveals new developments in Israel's official response to this terrible crime. Feaulte (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that, yes, the IDF's disclaimers and mechanical gestures to stop foreign political fallout must be mentioned but, as in this case, carefully, i.e. 'the IDF said that it had dismissed two commanders whom it considered responsible for this particular attack'. Look for a source that allows that, I guess. I haven't followed this closely but the type of 'missile' used seems very particular. The fire damage one sees in one vehicle was not the result of an immediate explosion. It was apparently a weapon whose drop weight was calculated to smash a small central area of the vehicle. That is why we have these strange narratives of cars being hit successively, and the 7 managing to get out and take another car (this is anomalous, given the huge volume of IDF videos which give the impression every vehicle struck explodes. Why was this type of munition used, perhaps, distinctively, for these vehicles - not exploding them but damaging them?). According to the elderly Palestinian camped by the fence, interviewed by Italian television, once the aid workers had shifted from the second car (I think), it ignited (petrol etc.,) and he and others tried to douse the flames, unsuccessively. (Quite soberly, with emotionless resignation, he added: 'here you either die from a bomb or starvation).Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that even if it is mechanical gestures, it should be mentioned as a part of Israel's official response. I can see you are very informed. Thank you for your time. Feaulte (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Spike" maybe? Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed but I can't read that, paywall- but I will look Spike up for an article I intend writing. A note on responsibility emerges from the article in today's Guardian.

(Yossi Sariel) argues that using AI to create potential military targets can be more efficient and avoid “bottlenecks” created by intelligence officials or soldiers. “There is a human bottleneck for both locating the new targets and decision-making to approve the targets. There is also the bottleneck of how to process a great amount of data. Then there is the bottleneck of connecting the intelligence to the fire.” He adds: “A team consisting of machines and investigators can blast the bottleneck wide open.”

I expect quite a lot of scholarly articles within several months, examining the dimensions of the genocide, will focus on the automatisation of target selection which confidently thought that “A team consisting of machines and investigators can blast the bottleneck wide open,” and then 'blasted repairs to the broken bottleneck of food supplies to the starving by 'blowing it wide open'. Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try https://archive.ph/uze2x Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential discussion aside, I added the dismissals to the article. starship.paint (RUN) 06:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

Page should be added to category Civilians killed in the Israel–Hamas war. 76.6.212.80 (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move from "World Central Kitchen drone strikes" to "World Central Kitchen massacre"

@KlayCax: - WP:BOLD page move claiming WP:COMMONNAME is perhaps excusable, but then citing a total of one opinion article for this is just facepalm worthy. Where are the news articles in support of the WP:COMMONNAME claim? starship.paint (RUN) 06:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it facepalm worthy, an article title with the word 'massacre', and/or categorization as a massacre, in the ARBPIA topic area that is not based on or representative of a large statistical sample of sources? Probably, but if you look across the topic area you will see that a) it is not very unusual and b) apparently it is excusable in the sense that editors are not sanctioned for it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: - we're talking about one opinion article here. Opinion articles are usable only for citing opinions. If any page titles in the topic area are similarly only cited to opinion articles, let me know. starship.paint (RUN) 09:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with you. You are correct according to policy in my view. But whether something is a "massacre" is an opinion not an objective fact. The word itself is an opinion in perhaps the majority of cases where it is used, including this one. That makes it problematic and susceptible to sampling bias/issues, as well as reporting bias. In such a polarized topic in terms of reporting there is unlikely to be a commonname that clearly ranks as #1. I think it would be better to use simple objective words like attack etc. unless there is a very clear evidence-based reason not to do so. As for some other examples in the topic area, see Kissufim massacre, Nir Oz massacre, Tel Aviv central bus station massacre, and probably many others. It is a bit of a systemic issue. People seem to like using the word in the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be described as a massacre in my opinion but there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources supporting it as a common name. It was a controversial move that shouldn't have been done boldly. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today also characterizes this incident as a "massacre". According to our very own massacre article, I quote "targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person." Some may not find that "7 deaths" meet the threshold of the term, but it is not up for us to debate the number of qualification. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's 2 samples out of n articles and we don't know what n is, but we know it's large. If editors look for the word they will find the word. But if they look for something that resembles as common name, what will they find? Many different things I think. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bold move away from "drone strikes" was very reasonable. The description of "massacre" is also not unreasonable – I don't think anyone is denying that this was egregious violence against innocents – but at the same time, many sources seem to simply use "attack" or "killing" at this time, and it's unclear if enough sources have yet been provided supporting "massacre". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's entirely in line with WP: PRECEDENT. Pro-Israeli sources are also calling it a massacre. (Since the individuals killed are indisputably aid workers.)
Labeling the events as simply "drone strikes" at least violates the spirit of WP:EUPHEMISM. KlayCax (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For controversial moves, we usually revert as undiscussed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Reaction Countermeasures

In the Aftermath or Reactions section it is worth including the various countermeasures that Israel has taken in response to the incident, which include:

a) "IDF decided to brand aid vehicles with special stickers that are visible with thermal cameras. The WCK vehicle had a sticker of the organization’s logo, although it was not visible to IDF drones at night." Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-dismisses-2-senior-officers-over-deadly-drone-strike-on-gaza-aid-convoy/

b) "Israel will temporarily open up Ashdod Port for humanitarian deliveries and will open Erez Crossing in the northern Gaza Strip for the first time since it was significantly damaged, and many Israelis were killed and abducted there, during the Hamas-led October 7 terror onslaught that sparked the ongoing war." Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-pms-call-with-biden-ministers-okay-steps-to-swiftly-ramp-up-aid-flow-to-gaza/

c) "Israel will also increase the amount of aid from Jordan moving through the Kerem Shalom crossing." Source: same as above Bradley1980 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two Misleading Phrases in Background Section

In the following paragraph of the Background section there are two statements that are false or misleading:

1) There has been rhetoric by Israeli politicians against the distribution of aid in Gaza. Giora Eiland, a retired Major General, wrote that: “In order to make the siege effective, we have to prevent others from giving assistance to Gaza.” His words were quoted by the South African delegation at the ICJ. Giora Eiland is not an Israeli politician and has been long retired when Oct 7th happened. I would suggest changing to say "rhetoric by some Israeli commentators"

2) This ruling was in response to the ordered provisional measures in the case of South Africa v. Israel of violating the Genocide Convention, where South Africa had filed a second request for additional measures, requesting the court to order additional emergency measures to require that Israel provide humanitarian assistance to address starvation and famine in Gaza. The sentence suggests that the ICJ ruling found Israel violated the Genocide Convention. This is not true. I suggest putting the word "allegedly" before "violating the Genocide Convention" Bradley1980 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

@Starship.paint: Please remove the "both parties have acknowledged" bit since the BBC source directly supports it without attribution, as I had mentioned in my edit summary: "Under coordination with the IDF, the World Central Kitchen team were transferring these supplies to a warehouse a few kilometres further south." Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Key Context Missing in Incident Section

WCK said the strike occurred in spite of vehicle logos and "coordinating movements" with Israeli forces in the "deconflicted zone".

A relevant part of the context that is missing here is that the attack occurred after dark with no street lights and no way for the drones to identify the WCK logos! "The WCK vehicle had a sticker of the organization’s logo, although it was not visible to IDF drones at night." Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-dismisses-2-senior-officers-over-deadly-drone-strike-on-gaza-aid-convoy/

It might also be worth mentioning how the misidentification occurred. The IDF believed that a gunman who joined the convoy was a Hamas member. This turned out to be false but it explains why the vehicles were targeted. At least this is part of the narrative the IDF offered and it should be "in evidence" for the reader. "The probe found that the strike was ordered against the convoy of WCK vehicles after officers suspected they carried a Hamas gunman, despite a low level of confidence, and against army regulations. The officers did not identify the vehicles as belonging to WCK when the strike was ordered, according to the investigation." Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-dismisses-2-senior-officers-over-deadly-drone-strike-on-gaza-aid-convoy/ Bradley1980 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to be quoting IDF investigations this way, needs commentary by reliable sources on whether these allegations are plausible or a cover up; especially given the fact that the Israeli military had been following the cars after their exit from the WCK warehouse, and they knew and approved of their route. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::You are confusing two things. (1) Claiming what actually happened and (2) What a relevant party is claiming happened. I am suggesting adding it with the full explanation that this is the IDF version of events - not that this is in fact what happened.

Also note that the notion that the IDF followed the cars after their exit from the WCK warehouse and that separately the mission was approved is not inconsistent with the IDF narrative. It could be that while they approved the route, they did not realize that the cars that they followed were indeed the WCK cars. They wrongly suspected that the convoy was not the WCK convoy after the gunmen got on. I find the alternative that they somehow knew exactly who was in the cars and targeted them deliberately to be highly implausible given the scandal that it would unleash and also that it's not in Israel's interests to not have aid get through. Someone who thinks Israel really wants to starve Gazans may beg to differ. I am not saying this is you necessarily. But regardless, I think it's legitimate for you to be skeptical of official narratives. This is why I suggest point (2) above and clearly indicating that this is the IDF's narrative, which readers deserve to consider. Bradley1980 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR Non EC editors are limited to the filing of edit requests only[reply]
You are not extended confirmed and these comments should be struck.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::::I am not sure I understand what you are saying. So what that I am not extended confirmed. This is a talk comment that addresses another user's concerns. Why should these comments be struck? Bradley1980 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR Non EC editors are limited to the filing of edit requests only[reply]

The suggestion that editors who aren't extended-confirmed are forbidden to take part in the conversation is a doozy. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also correct. WP:ARBECR allows non EC editors to file edit requests and nothing more. The initial comments are, barely, a straightforward edit request. EC editors will decide whether to implement the request, no further input is required. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024


  • Please Add After this sentence: WCK said the strike occurred in spite of vehicle logos and "coordinating movements" with Israeli forces in the "deconflicted zone". IDF said that the WCK logo was not visible to the IDF drones at night.
  • Why it should be changed: A relevant part of the context that is missing here is that the attack occurred after dark with no street lights and no way for the drones to identify the WCK logos! From article below: "The WCK vehicle had a sticker of the organization’s logo, although it was not visible to IDF drones at night.
  • References: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-dismisses-2-senior-officers-over-deadly-drone-strike-on-gaza-aid-convoy/

Bradley1980 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Bradley1980 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We don't take everything said by the IDF at face value especially in defending their possible war crimes. Military drones for missile guidance are generally equipped with night vision devices. The attacks occured at night has been sufficiently mentioned through out this article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sameboat - 同舟 Here is an article from the BBC where their journalists reviewed the drone footage and reached the same conclusion. The significance of it occurring at night needs to be spelled out as it's not obvious.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68742572 Bradley1980 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. BBC is merely quoting what was told by the IDF, and again we don't present IDF's claims as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice, unless there is a reluable independent party which agrees with the poor vision claim.-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all do respect, I do not think you read the article carefully. They are not "quoting what was told to them by the IDF". They were provided video footage of the drone attack and made an independent judgement. They say:
"They played those of us at the briefing a somewhat blurry video - which has not been released to the public... The drone footage also appears to confirm that at night, the stickers on the roof of the World Central Kitchen vehicles, with the charity's logo, are not visible to the drone operator." Bradley1980 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered in the investigations section. There are dependencies on the imaging system which is why both Bellingcat and the BBC include caveats. Only the IDF know what they could actually see or whether it mattered. Apparently a deconfliction arrangement to coordinate movements did not matter. A BBC journalist was shown footage by the IDF and could not see the logo. That does not tell you anything about what the IDF could actually see or whether it made any difference. Also, the statement "although it was not visible to IDF drones at night" is written as a statement of fact which is a bit of a weird thing to do given that it is obviously not an objective established fact of the matter or necessarily even relevant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be covered at any point the logos are mentioned because the implication of saying "the vehicle had visible logos" means that it was visible and was still targeted. We don't know this and so it misleads the reader. Very strange to say that its not "necessarily even relevant". Saying that "the deconfliction arrangement did not matter" assumes that the IDF knew that the vehicles were WCK vehicles, which is what is at issue. The drone footage is what the drone operator sees. It sounds like you believe that there may have been tampering with the video that was presented to the BBC. I do not see that caveat in the article that I cited. Where is this skepticism coming from. I could not find it from any source from doing a quick search. I would also wonder what possible evidence can the IDF provide that would convince you that their drone operators could not see the markings? I will concede your last point that it should say "although videos provided by the IDF to the BBC appear to show that the WCK markings were not visible to their drone operators at night" - to acknowledge that this has not been fully established. Bradley1980 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking us to modify the "incident" section which is so far covering established facts agreed by most reliable sources. Adding IDF's one-sided claims in this section is out of place. It is your own problem that you can't see the skeptism placed on the IDF. The WCK stated before and after the publication of the IDF's initial investigation that they don't trust the IDF's abilities to investigate their own failures. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "what was told by the IDF" I also intended to mean "what was presented by the IDF to BBC". It is just so very easy to blur or changing video image contrast to obscure the WCK logo on their vehicles. Again we don't trust IDF's claims, neither does the WCK. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2024

World Central Kitchen drone strikes → World Central Kitchen massacre – Proposing move for multiple reasons. The first is MOS:EUPHEMISM. This article's title is extensively close to the example given. And, ultimately, the present title amounts to lying-to-children. (It is widely being referred to as a "massacre" in sources.) Secondly, it is in line with WP: PRECEDENT. See the articles on the Flour massacre, Kissufim massacre, Nir Oz massacre, Tel Aviv central bus station massacre, etc. There is a consensus among both pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli sources that the drone strikes amount to a massacre of aid workers from World Central Kitchen who were intending to prevent Gazans in Palestine from starving. KlayCax (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please demonstrate this consensus by showing us the RS that have used this term as a common name? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If indeed it is the case that sources widely refer to these killings (that is possibly better than drone strikes), then by all means, let's change the title, but I would like to see the evidence for that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack&oldid=1217647799"