Talk:World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyediting

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Deaths

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

Perpetrator

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

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)

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

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)

You have already it seems reverted me twice which violates 1RR. [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Durranistan: Waiting for your kind self-revert then of both edits. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

working on it Durranistan (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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.'" Zero^talk 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Jeppiz I had that thought as well. The lead should be brief. It is only be necessary to put it in the context of the armed conflict, rather than including e.g. "during relief operations against famine caused by Israeli ...". NPOV demands one to not shove opinions up readers' throats; the value of Wikipedia paradoxically diminishes when argumentative activism is pursued. Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

Change "There have been a number of reported attacks on civilian aid seekers and workers, with more than 173 UNRWA staff have been killed by Israeli forces during the Israel–Hamas war." to "There have been a number of reported attacks on civilian aid seekers and workers, with more than 173 UNRWA staff killed by Israeli forces during the Israel–Hamas war." for grammatical reasons. 2600:1700:B3:8230:BC0C:6A58:467:345C (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024 (2)

update very first line/sentence

from: On 1 April 2024

to: On 1 April 2024 between 10:30pm and 11:00pm

Reason: the time of the strike is a crucial info as it allows the reader to reason that the strike occurred at nighttime.

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-what-we-know-about-israeli-strike-which-killed-aid-workers-13106653 Cbnowhere (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Someone else will handle your request. But I have a question. Why is it crucial for the reader to reason that the strike occurred at nighttime? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This would falsely imply as IDF has been claiming that it was a misidentification in the middle of the night, which ignores the fact that the three were targeted. It would only be due to mention "during the night", and in a separate lede paragraph, perhaps next to the sentence related to the IDF's explanation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

But the IDF didn't claim anything of the sort. One should not edit according to how one might see or fear or worry that information might lead readers to infer one thing or another, and withhold or add according to some POV. Israel's military surveillance technology is extremely advanced (it was a big talking point in the Singapore fair) and doesn't need 'daylight'. Personally I think it should be noted that the late hour is related to the fact that - as Israeli authorities well knew - they 7 had finished a long day's work, and were driving home.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The IDF did claim that "Among the findings were that drone footage had not captured the organization’s logo in the dark;.." Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction accepted, but as far as I know the thermal cameras on those night drones can see logos on cars. They had at that hour, sufficiently precise visual information to note that one Palestinian was among the group as they were closely tracked at every point from the port warehouse and depot onward. What the IDF is saying is that at night, they could identify one person in a bunch of 7 as a Hamas militant (read: a Gazan), but couldn't identify the clear logo on the roof. . .they they had been amply told of that detail beforehand (i.e. and didn't look for it) Yeah, sure, cheers, etc..Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Since someone has marked the edit request as done, I'm going to guess it was implemented and am closing this request. If it was not implemented, you can reopen the request by changing the "Answered=yes" parameter to "Answered=no". Shadow311 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Nice work, J. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks all! Makeandtoss I'm all in favor of the changes you suggested to my proposal. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Thank you, can you please implement this consensus? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

:::::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:

• 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

• @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)

  @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)

  @Makeandtoss: - you claim this but link to zero sources. Please provide links to these articles. starship.paint (RUN) 10:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: They are in the article [3], [4], [5]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  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

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  @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)

  @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)

  @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)

  @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)

  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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The IDF has admitted three drone strikes, one by one. [6] starship.paint (RUN) 14:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: So now we can agree on removing likely? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

Latest BBC Verify Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@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

“ Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. [not used]

The sun sets in the west each evening. [used]

”

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

@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)

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)

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)

Could well be but I don't think that is specifically sourced at this point? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Spike" maybe? Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Try https://archive.ph/uze2x Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@Makeandtoss: - there is attribution there actually, in the previous paragraph, which consists of only one sentence: The IDF sought to explain the context leading up to the fatal events of that evening. In the later sentences, even if attribution is not explicitly mentioned (e.g. At this stage the military contacts World Central Kitchen but they are in turn unable to reach the team on the ground), it's still implicitly attributed by the sentence I highlighted, because this isn't the BBC investigation, it's the IDF's. starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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". However, video drone footage provided by the IDF to the BBC appear to show that the WCK markings were not visible to their drone operators at night.
• Why it should be changed: A relevant part of the context of the incident that is missing here is that the attack occurred after dark with no street lights. The IDF claims that their drone operators were unable to see the WCK logos. This is an important detail. Without it the attack appears to be malicious where the drone operators saw the logos, knew who the occupants were, and chose to proceed to bomb anyway. We don't know this to be the case. BBC reviewed the drone footage provided by the IDF and concurred that the markings were not visible in the video. This is not taking the IDF's narrative as fact but simply presenting it in the interest of balance - while clearly marking that this is based on the IDF narrative and BBC's examination of the videos they provided.
• References: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68742572

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

References

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

 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)

::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)

 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)

::::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)

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)

::::::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)

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)

Given that the battlefield includes the severed limbs of people's children as witnessed by traumatized journalists on the ground, it is not very strange to say that it's not "necessarily even relevant". The imaging capabilities of the systems being used by the IDF is clearly not necessarily relevant to what they hit. They make proportionality decisions based on criteria we don't know like all modern armies. Perhaps in this case the imaging limitations were relevant, but we don't know, and the article should not suggest that we do. I don't believe anything. What I know for a fact is that the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct does not allow "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::There is a problem here based on the comments of several editors with distinguishing two things: "This is what happened" (e.g. It has been discovered that John was killed by his wife") vs "This is what some of the parties involved think what happened" (e.g. John's neighbor believes that John was killed by his wife). It is not "systematically manipulating content" to include narratives of relevant parties. In journalism this is standard practice. Articles will routinely cite different parties when there is ambiguity or uncertainty. The key point is to not state them as fact or to give them preference. My suggested edit is not favoring the IDF interpretation. It's just stating it as one interpretation for the reader to consider! In no way would my edit suggest that we know that this is indeed what happened. This is an ongoing event and this is one possibility for now based on one of the participants. ::::::::Regarding the "battlefield having severed limbs of children", this is undeniably tragic but is a red herring. Intention matters not just outcomes. It is certainly relevant if the deaths are caused due to negligence or to malice. The issue I have is that the article implies malice [In the Incident section]. After all, what possible explanation could there be for why a logo-marked car is targeted by drones. Well, one relevant detail and possibility is that it happened at night and the drones could not see those markings. Without this caveat the default interpretation is that it must be malice. And as you say "we don't know" that. Bradley1980 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole incident section makes no implication that the attacks were carried out with malicious intent. The IDF could genuinely believe they were targeting Hamas fighters on those vehicles. In other words the whole section doesn't put the IDF in an unfair position for not presenting their own claims because no accusation against the IDF's intent is present in the same section either. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::The word implication means that something is implied but is not explicitly stated. Ask yourself this question. Suppose someone who is unfamiliar with the details of the news story read this bit of the Incident section: ::::::::::"World Central Kitchen said that it had coordinated its movements with the Israeli Defense Force when the convoy was hit. WCK said the strike occurred in spite of vehicle logos and "coordinating movements" with Israeli forces in the "deconflicted zone". ::::::::::Don't you think that all these facts presented by themselves strongly imply malice? An alternative to what I am proposing is just to remove them and discuss the details in the Investigations section. Bradley1980 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly not. The WCK's claims in the incident section are generally accepted as facts by most reliable sources, and at the very least, not disagreed by the IDF either. The WCK's claims that they were being targeted on 4/1 deliberately only in the reaction section. And I think we are done now. Any further attempt to lengthen this edit request discussion may violate WP:NOTFORUM. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:52, 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. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::Your comment is visible to everyone here. Saying you "also intended" suggests that "told by the IDF" is what was said in the article. This is just not true. The BBC were shown a video. They made the choice that the video was credible enough to publish a story. If it is so easy to manipulate video contrasts, why is the BBC so gullible to not to mention this possibility. Has the IDF ever presented tempered video in this manner? This is a pretty serious accusation. What warrants this extreme level of skepticism? I also don't see the motive - they already took responsibility and accepted that this was a grave mistake so why also take the enormous risk of manipulating video evidence? ::::::I am also curious when you say "we don't take everything said by the IDF...". Who is the "we"? Is this a policy of Wikipedia? Are you part of a pack of editors who specialize in the Israel-Palestine conflict and you have a rule you developed amongst yourselves not to take IDF claims seriously? I am not advocating you take the IDF claims at face value, I just think it is worth mentioning them alongside other claims to present both sides to the reader. This is done with great hesitancy in the Investigations section but there is nothing wrong with doing it in other sections. Bradley1980 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Even with your modified edit request, this should not be done as stated in my previous reply of the principle of the "incident" section which is to present facts agreed by most reliables sources, not some sort of "evidence" which could be tampered after the fact. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bradley1980, Sean.hoyland, and Sameboat: - I have put the information inside the IDF investigation section. starship.paint (RUN) 03:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024 (1)

• Change: Change the characterization of Giora Eiland as an "Israeli politician" to "Israeli commentator": "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.”
• Why it should be changed: The preceding sentence implies that Giora Eiland is an Israeli politician (otherwise the preceding sentence about Israeli politicians seem extraneous and irrelevant). He has been long retired when Oct 7th happened. His current status, is at best, that of a commentator. He does not represent any political party at any level so he is not a politician so why give his example if the sentence above is talking about politicians?
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Giora Eiland

~~~~

References

Bradley1980 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done, the article does not say Giora Eiland is an Israeli politician. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024 (2)

• What should be changed: 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.
• Change to: ... case of South Africa v. Israel of *allegedly* violating the Genocide Convention or alternatively we can simply provide the name for the court case as its referred to in Wikipedia - South South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)
• Why it should be changed: The sentence suggests that the ICJ ruling actually found Israel violated the Genocide Convention. This is not true. It is also not the correct name for the court case.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

~~~~

References

Bradley1980 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024 (4)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Original Section: The Israeli government quickly accepted responsibility for the strike,[43] with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying it was "unintentional".[44]

Proposed Section:

The following day, the Israeli government confirmed its military was responsible for the deaths, with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu stating it was "an unintended strike".[43]

Changes:

- Removed the word "quickly" and replaced with "the following day"

- Amended the phrasing of the sentence

- Condensed the sentence's sources, as the original citation [43] conveys the same information as a citation [44] and can be removed, retaining [43].

• Why it should be changed:

Usage of the word "quickly" can take on different meanings depending on the person, and by specifying that the confirmation occurred the next day, the sentence and timeline of the events becomes more clear for readers.

Replacing "accepted responsibility" with "confirmed its military was responsible" moves the language closer to that presented in the cited article, and improves neutrality by specifying the government's acknowledgement of the strike without implying any particular attitude in specific to that acknowledgement.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

This change retains citation [43].

SaladsAgain (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References

• Changed both text and references. [7] The day after the strikes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that the Israeli military had killed the seven "innocent" aid workers, saying it was "unintentional". Forbes starship.paint (RUN) 12:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

::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

You are not extended confirmed and these comments should be struck.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

::::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

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)

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)

- the information has been provided in the IDF investigation section. starship.paint (RUN) 03:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024 (3)

• What should be changed: In the Reactions section for Israel put the following four bullet points or sentences:
• a) IDF has made the decision to brand aid vehicles with special stickers that are visible to thermal cameras from drones. This is meant to avoid future tragedies like the bombing of the World Central Kitchen convoy, whose markings the IDF said were not visible to its drone operators at night, when the attack occurred.
• b) Israeli cabinet approved the opening up of the Eretz Crossing in the northern Gaza strip. This was the first time the crossing point has been opened since it was ransacked and severely damaged and many Israelis were murdered and abducted during the Hamas attack on October 7.
• c) The Israeli cabinet approved the temporary opening of the Port of Ashdod for the delivery of humanitarian aid. The port is the closest Israeli port to Northern Gaza and is meant to work in synergy with the Eretz Crossing.
• d) Israeli cabinet also approved an increase in the amount of aid from Jordan that can be delivered through the Kerem Shalom crossing in Southern Gaza.
• Why it should be changed: This is an article about a current event (as the header states) not a historical account as some imply. Well, those four are clear and obvious examples of a reaction to this current event. They are documented by every major newspaper, but not this article. These are as much reactions as anything else described in the section, which already documents not just actions but also statements and political decisions. More importantly, these are reactions that show Israeli actions beyond merely apologizing. Not including them misrepresents reality and misleads the reader, which the section in its current form does. Based on the previous discussion I have put caveats to represent the night visibility issue is from the perspective of the IDF.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Source for a: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-dismisses-2-senior-officers-over-deadly-drone-strike-on-gaza-aid-convoy/ Source for b, c, d: https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-pms-call-with-biden-ministers-okay-steps-to-swiftly-ramp-up-aid-flow-to-gaza/

Bradley1980 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would not implement these changes personally as most RS indicate that it matters not what Israel is saying or doing but what the results are and it is too early to say. Still, I will leave the request open in case any other EC editor wishes to comment. (Further commentary from OP is not required). Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My reply remains the same even though OP has edited their original request after my reply. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

And still the same, notwithstanding yet another edit by OP. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Bradley1980: - could you find some international reliable sources for this content and add it to the edit request? starship.paint (RUN) 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The only points I plan to add are the opening of humanitarian aid crossings to the aftermath section. Even Al Jazeera reported the approval of reopening Erez crossing by the Israeli cabinet, but until such plan is actually carried out, I am hesitant to add them to the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I wanna clarify my reasons not just for responding to an indef-ed non-ECU's complaints: Israeli ruling class has a history of not keeping their words/promises, this is espscially the case regarding many issues with Palestine. Also in a recent interview with UNRWA, Director Sam Rose said that he doesn't believe the reopening of Erez would make any substantial improvement in the humanitarian efforts.[Video on YouTube] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Original requesting editor has been indefinitely blocked and objections have been raised to the desired edit. —Sirdog (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

On IDF members responsible for the killings...

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 6 April 2024

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)

---

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  Tagging @Selfstudier:. :) KlayCax (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  The USA Today article refers to it as a "massacre" only once. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Snow oppose per starship. No evidence has been provided that "massacre" is the common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  I meant it's a POV title for this article, not any article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  Do "high quality Arab media and UN officials refer to this as a massacre"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• Support "attack" at the very least, but the actions clearly represent a massacre. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack per Iskandar323 is the best suggestion so far. Zero^talk 07:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would support this suggestion as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm happy with this too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  Agreed including with rational. FortunateSons (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  "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)

• Comment I prefer killings but attack is OK too.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose, sensationalist title for a friendly fire incident. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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

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)

 Done Tollens (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 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)

Recent Israeli attacks against other aid operations

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)

Requested move 18 April 2024

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)

---

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)

• Support per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support as this is how it is described in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Typos

• NGO:s -> NGOs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:2F0:93A1:8106:4C6D:A8CB:1462:9068 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

War crime categorisation

I earlier restored Category:Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war to the article after it was removed citing WP:LPCRIME (? Biographies of living persons sub-section). My restoration has been reverted, now citing WP:VERIFY. To stave off further ping-pong, make your case here. My opinion: the Biographies of Living persons guidelines are not helpful in this case so we can put that aside -- the article is not a biography and the incident can fall under War Crimes without prejudice to any person who might be named in the article. War crimes are a state thing, they don't have to be individual.

So that takes us to Verifiable. The facts are not really in dispute, are they? The IDF have admitted some, the events are among the better-reported of the last few months. The facts are Verfied / Verifiable. The dispute is whether they can be categorised as above. The first and third parts, not in question either. A thing committed by Israeli forces, during the period being called here Israel-Hamas war.

Is it a war crime, then? Killing of non-combatants is a war crime, yes? As is the denial of food. The facts are not in question.

The only objection appears to be the lack of a (completed?) criminal process. That seems to me to be an unrealistic barrier that would exclude many things that would be uncontroversially described as war crimes. Aside from that, there is an (more than one?) ongoing war crimes case, and this may well have been cited in one of its hearings.

In summary:

• facts not in dispute
• requiring criminal conviction to label a war crime is
  • an unrealistic barrier
  • probably not applied to other comparable cases
• the incident is relevant to the ongoing war crimes case(s)

I have (well, am about to) therefore (re-)restored the category pending discussion here. Chaikney (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You have violated 1RR with this edit. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain in complete sentences and address the points above. I can communicate in English and Spanish but not WP legalese. I note that the link you put on my talk page says (under 1RR), "These provisions have been vacated", so help me out here: what is the point you are trying to communicate?.Chaikney (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the large Warning Active Arbitration Remedies section at the top of this talk page, and the edit notice that is displayed when you edited the article. You have made more than one revert in 24 hours in violation of the sanction on this topic area. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I made an edit, which someone reverted. I reverted that and opened discussion on the issue (above) so we can clarify the area of disagreement in a more useful way than single-line edit summaries. Still waiting for that person to clarify their disagreement and for others to contribute their thoughts on the issue under discussion.Chaikney (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)