Talk:World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Did you know nomination

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

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

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the attack on World Central Kitchen aid convoy in the Gaza Strip, which killed seven aid workers, was a result of three consecutive missiles fired by an Israeli drone? Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-02/ty-article/.premium/idf-bombed-wck-aid-convoy-3-times-targeting-armed-hamas-member-who-wasnt-there/0000018e-9e75-d764-adff-9eff29360000
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jumu'atul-Wida + Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship by copyright

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).

My objection is now outdated. Events and sources are moving. starship.paint (RUN) 02:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Source article links please. starship.paint (RUN) 10:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: They are in the article , , . Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

• Per the discussions at both Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham, it might not be a good idea to run the proposed hooks as currently written. Courtesy ping to 4meter4 regarding this matter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@Starship.paint: @4meter4: If there is support for ALT2 then I would go for it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Done. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

Narutolovehinata5 Have your concerns been assuaged?--Launchballer 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

If the article has stabilized then, yes, this is ready for a fresh review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• Reviewer needed now that article has stabilized and the hooks reflect the new article name. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If stability is the only barrier and this has now stabilised, then this is good to go.--Launchballer 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

Please replace Nochi Mandel in Perpetrators section with the text {{Interlanguage link|Nochi Mendel|he|נוחי מנדל}} (basis:text מנדל is used in he:גרגור מנדל (Gregor Mendel).)--Sonobeelementaryschool (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC) Nochi Mendel

•  Done ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 05:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

The sentence ''In January 2024, Mandel, along with 130 other IDF reserve officers, signed an open letter imploring that Gaza be deprived of humanitarian aid and that "humanitarian supplies and the operation of hospitals inside Gaza City" not be allowed.'' is found in World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack#Perpetrators. But this sentence is changed from the source. So 130 other IDF reserve officers should be changed to 130 other reserve officers and commanders Sonobeelementaryschool (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 05:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

Current sentence: “While noting serious failings on the part of the IDF, an Australian government report largely supported the Israeli position.”

Issue: This wording is not supported by reliable sources and misrepresents the findings of the Australian government’s independent review. It also omits a key limitation of the review that is documented in multiple high‑quality sources.

Proposed replacement: “While the review accepted that the strike was not deliberate and described Israel’s investigation as ‘timely and appropriate with some exceptions,’ it also noted that the Special Adviser did not have access to real‑time audio communications between IDF drone operators and commanders, which Israel has so far declined to provide.”

Sources supporting this change: - SBS News: “Israel yet to respond to Australian request to provide Zomi Frankcom drone strike audio” — confirms Israel has not provided the real‑time audio requested by Australia and that Binskin did not have access to it.

 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/israel-yet-to-respond-to-australian-request-to-provide-zomi-frankcom-drone-strike-audio/05kyflzz6

- The Guardian: “Zomi Frankcom’s brother demands audio of deadly Israeli strike…” — reports that the audio remains in the IDF’s possession and has not been handed to Australia.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/31/zomi-frankcoms-brother-demands-audio-of-deadly-israeli-strike-but-ambassador-says-its-in-the-idfs-hands

- Sydney Morning Herald: “Israeli ambassador declines to apologise for Zomi Frankcom killing” — confirms Israel has not provided the audio and that the Australian government continues to seek it.

 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-have-expressed-sympathy-israeli-ambassador-declines-to-apologise-for-zomi-frankcom-killing-20260331-p5zk4u.html

Policy justification: - WP:NPOV — The current sentence implies endorsement of Israel’s position, which is not supported by the sources. - WP:RS — All proposed information is backed by high‑quality, reliable news outlets. - WP:V — The limitation of the review (lack of access to audio communications) is verifiable and documented. - WP:NOR — The proposed wording avoids interpretation and sticks strictly to what the sources state.

Request: Please update the article with the proposed neutral wording. ~2026-25665-50 (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 18 May 2026

The link to Project HOPE is referencing Project Hope (Palestine). However, it should link to Project HOPE, so it is currently referencing the wrong organisation. The source article currently used in the article includes the following text:

“We are horrified and heartbroken by the tragic killing of seven innocent humanitarians in Gaza,” said Chris Skopec, executive vice president of global health at Project HOPE, which operates health clinics in Rafah and Deir al-Balah and provides medical supplies and other aid to area hospitals.

Chris Skopec was at the time the executive vice president of global health at Project HOPE, not Project Hope (Palestine); this proves that the link should be amended to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HOPE .

Evidence 1: https://www.projecthope.org/person/chris-skopec/ Evidence 2: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-skopec-1940552b/

Diff:

−

=== Effects on humanitarian efforts in Gaza === Humanitarian and aid organizations operating in the [[Gaza Strip]] suspended their operations after the attack. Among them are [[American Near East Refugee Aid|Anera]] and [[Project Hope (Palestine)|Project Hope]]

+

=== Effects on humanitarian efforts in Gaza === Humanitarian and aid organizations operating in the [[Gaza Strip]] suspended their operations after the attack. Among them are [[American Near East Refugee Aid|Anera]] and [[Project HOPE|Project Hope]]

~2026-29717-63 (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done with minor changes. Day Creature (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)