Talk:World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack

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


Did you know nomination[edit]

(
)
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My objection is now outdated.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]

Requested move 6 April 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against the use of the word "massacre". No clear consensus for other titles, which can be proposed in a new RM. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    USA Today and other American news agencies have referred to it as an undisputed "massacre".
    Most sources don't call it the "World Central Kitchen drone strikes" verbatim, either. KlayCax (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging @Selfstudier:. :) KlayCax (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The USA Today article refers to it as a "massacre" only once. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it is accurate to say "the present title amounts to lying-to-children". There is no lie in the present title. Maybe you can argue that it is lying by omission, but the article naming procedure is evidence based, so if it is strictly followed (which is probably not the case here), there is no need to try to evaluate the truthiness/precision of the title. It will just be "how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject", or at least some messy and mysteriously compressed version of that. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current title is not euphemestic at all nor "lying to children". If the majority of WP:BESTSOURCES refer to this as a massacre then the name can be changed but that needs to be demonstrated.If not the majority of RS but many/enough refer to it as a massacre then that can be added as an alternate name. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ("widely being referred to as a "massacre" in sources ... consensus among both pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli sources that the drone strikes amount to a massacre") empty claims with no evidence in your RfC, KlayCax. Do your homework before submitting the proposal. Provide the reliable sources, not one opinion article as you did so previously. starship.paint (RUN) 02:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a Google Search on the term "World Central Kitchen massacre" and there were less than 55 results (ignore the number at the top and actually scroll down until you can't scroll anymore, click "repeat the search with the omitted results included", and then scroll to the bottom again). Most, if not all, of the results are not news articles, and even one that was had the term in the title, not the actual article text. starship.paint (RUN) 02:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against per Snow there is no coverage per @Starship.paint, and there would need to be overwhelming coverage for such a POV name. FortunateSons (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title is not euphemistic, nor is there widespread coverage of the event as a massacre. The flour massacre had a much higher death toll and was widely described as a massacre. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and suggest closing. No RS shows that it is referred to as a massacre, 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be closed per WP:SNOWBALL or withdrawn by the nominator. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still, I’m interested in seeing the totality of the nominator’s evidence, and whether they have wasted at least seven editors’ time. starship.paint (RUN) 23:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a complete waste of time because at least it's a) a reminder of the systemic problem with the use of the word massacre I described above in the Talk:World_Central_Kitchen_drone_strikes#Move_from_"World_Central_Kitchen_drone_strikes"_to_"World_Central_Kitchen_massacre" section, and b) more evidence that the best way to crowbar the word massacre into a title, absent an evidentiary basis to do so, is to do it at the article creation stage and hope no one will fix it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the silverlining, but, while I don't believe this requested move has wasted very much time at all, I do think that time wasting / disruptive editing in this topic area needs to be taken seriously. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest "killings" as better than drone strikes, lots of sources refer to it like that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow oppose per starship. No evidence has been provided that "massacre" is the common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Massacre" is far too POV. Not generally described as a massacre and I don't think most people would think of it as a massacre unless they were doing so for political reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a matter of POV, there are plenty of articles with massacre in the title on Wikipedia. It's a matter of what RS say and they don't call it a massacre. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant it's a POV title for this article, not any article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support. It is too much to demand that "most" sources refer to this as a massacre. Western media has a devastating bias in favour of Israel and empirical evidence in RS has emerged that killings of Israelis are far more likely to be described by top-notch English-speaking sources as "massacre" or "slaughter" than killings of Palestinians, even though the latter are far more common. If we allow ourselves to be guided by the NYT etc., then not a single massacre has ever been perpetrated by Israel even though it has already killed 33,000 Palestinians and 200 aid workers since October, which is 30 times the number of Israelis killed in Oct 7. Wikipedia is thus limited to reflecting Western sources' systemic bias, which is pro-Israel. The standard needs to be lowered to some, rather than most, RS's, and attention needs to be paid to sources that deviate from Western trends. I'd say if high quality Arab media and UN officials refer to this as a massacre, then that should be enough. In the meantime, the OP has a point about the euphemism. At the very list "drone strikes" should be changed to "killings" or "drone killings". Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do "high quality Arab media and UN officials refer to this as a massacre"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, while your concerns of bias are correct and need to taken into account here, we can not call this event a massacre unless enough of the best reliable sources label the event as such. See Wp:Right great wrongs. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument for reconsideration of "Western sources" as reliable, at least for the topic area of the I/P conflict. Not relevant for here, since consensus has not been and is not being generated to support that demotion. Zanahary (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Using "attack" in the title should be considered, even possibly something like "World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack" per this BBC article. This would be more descriptive and is not unneutral or POV. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack as superior and more precise than the current title. It is more precise to insert "aid convoy", as otherwise the precise object of the attack is actually missing. WCK is the organisation, but the organisation as a whole was not attacked; it's aid convoy was. "Drone strikes" is superficially precise, but is actually not so. Does this mean attack by missiles, or kamikaze drone? Better to call it attack, and leave the detail for the body. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "attack" at the very least, but the actions clearly represent a massacre. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack per Iskandar323 is the best suggestion so far. Zerotalk 07:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this suggestion as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with this too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I agree too. That proposal includes more relevant keywords, and would likely make it easier for people to find this article DFlhb (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only want this request to get closed ASAP to get rid of the ugly tag at the article top, since there is not a million chance the "massacre" would get enough support ATM. I have no issue with "drone strikes" because this usually suggests an exceptionally deadly assault. While "aid convoy attack" is easier to understand, it fails to describe the deadly nature of this incident, and this is not Simple English Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed including with rational. FortunateSons (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Drone strikes" doesn't actually imply any more information about the fatal/non-fatal nature of the incident than "attack". You can just as readily drone strike an inanimate object. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I prefer killings but attack is OK too.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose massacre, but also oppose the current title. This has very little to do with drones so why is that in the title? Both "killings" and "attack" would be fine (but please don't make them "drone killings" or "drone attacks" - there was a human controlling the drone).VR (Please ping on reply) 12:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sensationalist title for a friendly fire incident. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly sounds like a friendly fire incident once you get background on the commander behind the massacre. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On IDF members responsible for the killings...[edit]

The Telegraph published today an article giving some important background on one of the IDF commanders who've been removed after the killing -- he's a settler who in January this year signed an Israeli petition demanding the total cancellation of all food aid into Gaza. However, though this information is relevant to the subject, I don't know where it should be inserted into the entry. Suggestions? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely noteworthy, either in the section under IDF investigation which mentions the sacked commander; or more conveniently, something that I would support, is creation of a new section that would be focused on the "perpetrators," the identified IDF soldiers/commanders responsible/sacked. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a new section, but not so sure about your suggested section title "perpetrators". As many, including the Biden administration, have little faith in Israel's investigation, it is very difficult to say those who have been sacked were indeed responsible for giving the command or carrying out those strikes which killed the WCK aid workers. We don't even know if those sacked would face any criminal prosecution at all. I just want a more precise section title. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser 01:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Central Kitchen drone strikes → World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack – More descriptive title. This was discussed in the recently closed above discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support because that's what the event was and described as. It was a drone strike that attacked a WCK aid convoy.
I opposed the word "massacre" earlier because almost no sources described the event as one. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is how it is described in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2024[edit]

Update - Last sentence of diplomatic fallout section.

From: On 6 April Wong stated that she and Minister for Defence Richard Marles had written to their Israeli equivalents calling for further action to be taken against the individuals responsible for the attack.

To: On 6 April, Wong stated that she and Minister for Defence Richard Marles had written to their Israeli equivalents calling for further action to be taken against the individuals responsible for the attack.

Reason: A comma should be after the word April in this case.

75.142.254.3 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tollens (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone for consistency – I've just learned that the comma isn't required, and the paragraph does not use the comma there throughout. Tollens (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Israeli attacks against other aid operations[edit]

Canada contacts Israel after aid agency says water truck bombed in 'targeted' attack. I don't know of any other entry documenting Israeli attacks against aid workers or aid infrastructure. Does this belong here? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack&oldid=1221349726"