Talk:UN convoy targeted in Syrian province of Idlib

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Pi zero in topic Categories

OR edit

Watched the video to write the report. Also fired off an email to the UN mission in Syria. Not expecting a response, but it doesn't hurt to try. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

And unfortunately the email to their mission was just returned to me as a "permanent error." So much for that one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Having/had conversation with RT News reporter Sara Firth regarding the incident. Her twitter feed is here:!/SaraFirth_RT DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 1500386 [Passed] edit

Where's the video? edit

Just read the article, but can we get the video and put it on Wikinews? Crtew (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

First-listed source. --Pi zero (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I saw that, but wouldn't it still be better to put it right into the story? The copyright situation seem to be similar to the Syrian videos that Wikinews published earlier in the year. Crtew (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Update from UN News Centre edit

According to the United Nations: UN personnel had to be left behind after the blast and a patrol had to pick them up later. Nobody was injured by the IED earlier, but three UN marked vehicles were damaged.

Correction edit

If you read that story from the UN that I posted in the update, then the Wikinews story is incorrect because an IED is very different from a mortar shell. Crtew (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you saying that here instead of submitting-for-review a fix to the article (otherwise known as editing it)? You edit the article, and leave it for someone else to sight; that's how you submit changes to a published article. --Pi zero (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Because this is more than a minor edit ... The headline is incorrect ... there appear to be factual errors in the story based on the assumption that it was mortar shell ... and new information from the UN. At first I just thought the story needed the video, but now it appears after looking into it more, that it may need something more major. Crtew (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
You seem to have misunderstood how these things are done. We are talking about a substantive edit to a published article, which is permitted for the first 24 hours after publication, provided no source is added whose date is after the date of publication. You make the edit and don't self-sight it (self-sighting would only be permitted if the edit were not substantive). An independent reviewer reviews it, perhaps makes copyedits of the same ilk that would be permitted during review for initial publication, and whatever they clear for publication, they sight (rejecting the entire edit would consist of reverting it entirely and sighting the reversion).
And this can only be done for the first 24 hours after publication. After that, we would have to issue a {{correction}}. So please proceed with submitting the change; talking about it doesn't fix anything, and if we expend enough time on this meta-talk it can make the problem a great deal worse.
As I explained on my talk page, renaming the article can be proposed here on the talk page, and once the edit has been published, the rename can proceed. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the publish. Everything at the time I wrote the article was accurate as what was known at the time. Most of it was prior to the UN making an official release. Initial reports from journalists on twitter were that it had been a mortar because shelling could be heard before this incident took place. I would have updated as it was needed, but I had to leave for work. I was glad to see it had been done in my absence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I realized this morning, we should have tagged this one {{breaking}}; so often people use {{breaking review}} when they really mean {{urgent review}}, and here when a genuine breaking story comes along we miss the trick. Oh well, live and learn. --Pi zero (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
In retrospect, this is a case of good teamwork! I agree with Pi's comment on breaking news review for any story where there is bound to be an update. I realized that the early reporting was fresh when I came to it. My first reaction was praise for the first reporter in recognizing that this was an important story and the first reporter did an excellent job with the materials out there at the time. My other reactions above were from recognizing that followup was needed since new info had been released since the first reporter edited the story and publication. I had the luxury of confirmations from the UN and the pieces of info coming in about the funeral. By then other news organizations were also mentioning the video. At the time, I was trying to figure out how to to do a major update on the story while respecting the integrity of the original report. It helped me to have a kind a scratch page -- the extra developing story -- independent from the story as I worked through the revision. It also helped to have Pi directing the edits. Besides the breaking news template, I think everything here worked as it should. Good teamwork! Crtew (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Headline change edit

I propose a new headline to remove "shelling" as it is factually incorrect. The bomb has been confirmed to be an IED and not a mortar shell. The difference is significance as one is stationary and the other is an incoming strike. Crtew (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

United Nations briefing (source: UN) edit



  • Asked about fighting taking place today in Syria, the Spokesperson said that the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) reports that, shortly after 2pm local time on Tuesday, an UNSMIS convoy of four vehicles was struck by an explosion from an improvised explosive device in Khan Cheikhoun, near Hama.
  • Three UN vehicles were damaged. No UN personnel were injured.
  • Nesirky said that the Mission has sent a patrol team to the area to extract the UN military observers.
  • Asked about the Secretary-General’s previous condemnation of attacks on UN troops, the Spokesperson said that the UN Mission is in place to help civilians, and anything that could hinder that effort is something the United Nations would condemn.
  • It is plain, he said, that a cessation of violence has not taken place in the way that was needed, and Nesirky emphasized that the parties need to cease all fighting.
  • Asked about the postponement of a meeting of the League of Arab States and Syrian opposition figures in Cairo, the Spokesperson said that the Joint Special Envoy regrets that the League of Arab States forum of the Syrian opposition had to be postponed. He looks forward to seeing further efforts in helping the opposition become more united and efficient.

The briefing notes appear at are typically posted and refreshed by the UN. This is how they appeared at this time stamp as posted by Crtew (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Categories edit

{{edit protected}} Please move this article from Category:Syria to Category:Syrian Civil War. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added to the latter. --Pi zero (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Return to "UN convoy targeted in Syrian province of Idlib" page.