Jump to content

Talk:World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeppiz (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 3 April 2024 (→‎Suggestion for Lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Copyediting

What does "deconflicted" exactly mean in this context? Y. Dongchen (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. @Y. Dongchen: Please restore "aid workers", as they were specifically employees dealing with the distribution of aid and not any other managerial positions. Also please restore the information about the UNRWA workers killed, which is being reported in every RS article about the airstrike, so this is definitely notable and relevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used "employees" as it is a specific word used in the WCK press release. The killed UNRWA workers is not of high relevance − Wikipedia is not written in news style. If readers want some context of the level of Israeli killings, the "see also" section does that. Y. Dongchen (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss Ah sorry on the first point I didn't initially understand you: If you do not understand the original language in e.g. a press release, inclusion should be done via Wikipedia:Quotations. NPOV reporting demands aversion from direct copying from press releases if a term is unclear. Y. Dongchen (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: You can revert non ECR editing without consequence and non EC editors may submit edit requests if desired per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that explains quite a number of things, I still haven't reverted anyone anyway, but good to know. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCK logos on the cars

@Durranistan: [1] was this reverted by mistake? In addition to the grammar fix at the opening paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already it seems reverted me twice which violates 1RR. [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a mistake because I'm mostly focused on the reaction section of the article Durranistan (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Durranistan: Waiting for your kind self-revert then of both edits. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
working on it Durranistan (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

@Gianluigi02: Please add "aid workers" to the 7 in the infobox which was removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator

Drones are operated by the IAF or IDF generally? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: add Polish reaction

The reactions were removed from World Central Kitchen in preference for inclusion in this main article. The Polish reaction has not been transferred. It is is included in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Central_Kitchen&diff=prev&oldid=1216867533 Y. Dongchen (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of Haaretz source

The Haaretz article used for the single source of an armed man being seen on the truck is paywalled. I assume that claim was from the same military source referred to later, but if someone can make an archive.org link or whatever so the full article can be read in context, that would be helpful. Meantime I have caveated the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaikney (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaikney: It should be accessible via WP:TWL, since we recently got access to Haaretz. Archive.org and archive.today don't seem to work in bypassing the paywall, iirc. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaikney: Here is the Wikipedia library copy. Haaretz is an excellent source for this type of thing because (unlike most of the Israeli press) they don't just parrot the IDF claims, and they have excellent sources within the military. Another relevant article is here though it doesn't load completely for me. A sample: "The sources accused the IDF's Southern Command of trying to deflect blame for the incident in Deir al-Balah, in which seven employees of World Central Kitchen were killed. A source in the intelligence branch said the command 'knows exactly what the cause of the attack was – in Gaza, everyone does as he pleases.'" Zerotalk 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'suspicion' that a 'terrorist' was on the convey is the IDF view that no Palestinian armed guards (the Hamas civil police force which did this has been largely wiped out) may accompany any food convoy, which are however subject to desperate assaults.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead vs body

I agree with the tag that the lead is overly long, especially given the short body. All information in the lead seems relevant for the article, but perhaps some could be moved from the lead to the body to give the article a more impactful lead? Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is with the second lede paragraph which is hard to summarize into a few sentences without missing a number of important points. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: French government reaction

At the press conference with Antony Blinken on 2 April, French foreign minister Stéphane Séjourné mentioned it in his opening remarks. Below is a good translation by the Department of State of a relevant exerpt:

Dear Antony, we talked about the Middle East, and please allow me, first and foremost, to express our firm condemnation of the Israeli strike that led to the death of seven humanitarian personnel of the NGO World Central Kitchen.  The protection – the situation – humanitarian situation is disastrous and is worsening day after day, and nothing justifies such a tragedy.  In this context, all decisions taken by the Security Council shall be implemented, including Resolution 2728.  And what does it say?  Well, it says that all hostages must be released immediately and without conditions; that all civilians must be protected; and that massive humanitarian aid should be delivered.


And in this context, I had a chance to present the French initiatives of the Security Council to the secretary – general secretary.  We need to work on a two-state solution, based on just and sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine, based on security guarantees on both sides.  And I have found discussions to be constructive.  And over the next few weeks, I will continue to work and advocate all of this with all the stakeholders in the region and the permanent members of the Security Council.

Source: https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-french-foreign-minister-stephane-sejourne-at-a-joint-press-availability/ Y. Dongchen (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Opening paragraph

Not sure who changed the opening paragraph and removed the context about the ongoing famine from it. Also factual information regarding the drone attacks in the first sentence were removed and replaced with vehicles being "destroyed" by "forces". A redundant Haaretz attribution was added even when the same conclusions were reported by majority of RS including AJ, BBC and Bellingcat. These changes are not constructive and have downplayed the severity of this targeted drone attack. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss I agree. Inclusion of the Haaretz report is overly specific for a lead paragraph. In addition, the Haaretz report paragraph in /* Incident */ is too distracting. Much of it can be paraphrased. WP:OVERQUOTING Y. Dongchen (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can disagree with one point you make, a, shorter lead makes a better case for the severity of the attack. Generally speaking, shorter leads are more impactful. The longer the lead gets, the more it gets bogged down in detail and casual readers pass it over. This applies to all articles, but is relevant here as well. If we agree that this is a horrible attack and the severity of it should stand out, then we should keep the lead as short and impactful as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 3 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack&oldid=1217116116"