Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Gaza flotilla clash)
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:



Request for comment[edit]

In closing this delicate and intricate RfC, I began by referring to Wikipedia's three core content policies. These policies provide a lot of very helpful guidance in this case, particularly WP:V which specifically addresses content of this kind. The paragraph that's the subject of this RfC very clearly falls within the definition of "disputed content" per WP:ONUS. It follows from WP:ONUS that if there is no consensus in the discussion, then the disputed paragraph must not be included in the article.

On the !vote count, there is clearly no consensus in the discussion, but it's inexcusably lazy to rely on the !vote count when closing an RfC. The "yes" camp raise a number of points in support of including the disputed paragraph, and I have assessed each of these in turn.

Point: The "facts" that the vessel carried no cargo, did carry mercenaries, and some of the activists wanted a martyrs death is notable.
Assessment: I understand "notable" to mean "significant and relevant" in this case. (Notability also has a technical meaning on Wikipedia that's often trotted out in AfD discussions, but that clearly doesn't apply here.) It's fair to say that editors are unpersuaded by this argument. That these are "facts" at all is disputed; they're the unsupported testimony of one side, and although these claims are repeated by academics, a plurality of editors still find these "facts" are not reliably supported. Editors are entitled to reach this finding. Nevertheless, the point was supported by both reasoning and evidence on Darkness Shines' part, and partial weight must accrue to it.

Point: Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so every point from both sides should be mentioned.

Assessment: This is not what WP:NPOV says, and subsequent editors rightly ignored this argument. There's far too much he-said-she-said in Wikipedia's coverage of Israel-related topics. No weight.

Point: Precision123's view, which is too nuanced for me to summarise in a pithy phrase but supports inclusion of part of the disputed paragraph.
Assessment: Good points well made, and despite KingsIndian's also-well-reasoned attempts to weaken them, I feel I have to give full weight to this.

Point: It would be permissible to include these if not in Wikipedia's voice.
Assessment: Yes, that deserves weight.

Taking these arguments as a whole, I think some are persuasive. But they would have to be more than persuasive before I could say that there is a consensus to include this content.

Having got this far, it wasn't necessary for me to assess the "no" arguments. "Yes" had to make its case; "yes" didn't; so WP:ONUS prevails and I find that the disputed content should be removed from the article.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the following content be kept in this article?

It was later found that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian supplies, and that elements within the Turkish government had paid 50 mercenaries to take part,[1] and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death".[2]

  1. ^ Schwartzwald, Jack L. (2012). Nine Lives of Israel: A Nation's History through the Lives of Its Foremost Leaders. McFarland. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-0786466849. 
  2. ^ Spoerl, Joseph S. (2013). "Hamas: It`s Past, Present and Future". In Copeland, Thomas E. Drawing a Line in the Sea: The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 79. ISBN 978-0739167328. 
  • Yes, the fact that this vessel carried no cargo, and had 50 paid mercenaries aboard, as well as the fact that some of these "activists" wanted a martyrs death is notable and needs to be here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No The piece about the Mavi Marmara not carrying aid is irrelevant, it is a passenger ship and carried passengers, the aid was on others ship that were obviously cargo ships.GGranddad (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No First of all, the source simply regurgitates the IDF claim (look at the citations), so no way it should be presented in WP's voice. The statement makes 3 points. The first (Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian aid) is totally irrelevant. It was part of a flotilla, some carrying cargo, some passengers. Second, the claim of 50 mercenaries, is from a JPost article, citing the IDF. The official and authoritative Israeli report of "40 hardcore activists" is already present in the lead. The third point is "people wanted to be martyrs". The source for the third seems to be (assuming the following is true, can someone confirm?) ITIC which is very close to IDF, which should be attributed at the very least. Palwatch. First of all, Palwatch is hardly WP:RS. Secondly, just look at the page and see for yourself whether the "martyr's death" means anything. Here is one quote "He used to help the poor and the oppressed. For years, he wanted to go to Palestine. And he constantly prayed to Allah to grant him Shahada (Martyrdom)". It looks as though it serves very little purpose in the lead, even if it's true. In what context was this line uttered? The Israeli claim that there was a provocation and doubts about IHH's motives is already present in the lead. Longer discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The site for the claim about martyrs is Palwatch.GGranddad (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Assuming this is true (can Darkness Shines confirm?), Palwatch is, of course not a WP:RS. I don't think laundering such claims through a medicine professor (first source) and a philosophy professor (second source) makes them any better. Kingsindian (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I already linked to the Palwatch source in that book in our other conversation above on the talk page. Here it is again [1]Number 59GGranddad (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. The ship was a part of a flotilla claiming to be nothing but humanitarian in nature and hence the information is relevant. Comitus (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No As per Kingsindian, a press release is not a RS, even if it is subsequently published in a reliable source (though it seems uncertain either of these sources are reliable). DocumentError (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source, and therefore every piece of information about an event from both sides should be included. This piece of information comes from the IDF side of the story, and not including it would create bias in favor of the passenger side. Also, a press release is a reliable source. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Then surely this should be reworded "it was later CLAIMED by the IDF" and not "it was later FOUND that?" (Also, a press release is not a RS except to report a statement made by the entity issuing the press release as per WP:THIRDPARTY; not objective facts.) DocumentError (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither source cited is a press release, that are both from academic publishing houses. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is each source was referencing a press release. Secondly, a Jack Schwartzwald book - regardless of what imprint published it - cannot be a NPOV source on Israel as Schwartzwald is an editorial opinion columnist for FrontPage Magazine in which he writes almost exclusively on the Israel-Palestine conflict. If this is, indeed, factual information there should be a large number of more reliable sources readily available. DocumentError (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not Firstly, the BBC investigation referred to in the cargo section specifically found that highlighting one negative aspect of the cargo carried by the flotilla was misleading since the flotilla carried a large amount of useful and needed cargo. Highlighting that one specific ship in the flotilla didn't carry cargo is clearly even more misleading. Concerning the other two points, we shouldn't present anything from one of the parties in a neutral voice. I vaguely recall the "martyr's death" aspect from when this attack was current, and the meaning in context was completely innocuous, this can be verified from the archives I believe. (edit: this source explains what muslims would understand with the "martyr" terminology: "Such descriptions would be regarded by many Muslims as evidence that they put religious duty before their lives, rather than an admission that they were heading to battle") Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the martyrdom point discussed below, sources have also seen it prudent to explain that the martyrdom comments didn't mean what Westeners would in this context understand with them, so IMO including them without that clarification would fall short of neutrality. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No as the statement is one sided and a point of view of IDF, it cannot be quoted as verbatim fact. However, it can be attributed to the IDF. Mar4d (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed that the question is phrased a bit imprecisely. This edit was first made to the lead, which is quite different from a question of whether "it should be kept in the article". For the lead, there are also considerations of WP:UNDUE in addition to other stuff which is mentioned in the comments above. Since many people have already given comments, I don't know how to fix this issue. Kingsindian (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial No as to the edit proposed by User:Darkness Shines, though I agree that the information (if either true or claimed by certain sources) is relevant (either as fact or as a view attributable to that source). We should take other sources into account. My take:
  • I see no reason why these points are in one sentence. They are from different sources and the points are not all directly related.
  • The books were published by major publishing houses though this is not an especially important argument in this discussion or in general.
  • First point (humanitarian aid): The statement does not look like it has been substantiated. Darkness Shines, what are the quotations from the books that say this, and can you find other sources that back it? (There might be more information/context that we don't have.) If not, just leave it out.
  • Second point (50 mercenaries): This point is better expressed by the Jerusalem Post, as well as Haaretz and the Jewish Chronicle. Including the information as described in those newspapers should not be problematic.
  • Third point (martyr's death): This point is attributable to an ITIC report [2][3], though there are other sources as well. The findings are better expressed by the Jerusalem Post, with similar reports made by The Daily Telegraph (thank you, Dailycare) and The Guardian (and other, similar quotations reported by Haaretz, ABC, BBC, and TVNZ).
  • Conclusion: Some of this information is encyclopedic, but the style of the proposed edit above makes the addition of these points more controversial than it should be. Including one or two sentences for points 2 and 3 (NPOV/DUE WEIGHT), citing the newspapers rather than the books (NPOV; RS), and attributing where necessary (ATTRIBUTEPOV) should not be a problem. --Precision123 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments
  • About point 2. I do not understand the point about quoting newspapers. How is it any different if the JPost quotes the IDF or the book by Darkness Shines quotes the IDF? Secondly, as I mentioned, the "40 hardcore activists" claim is already present in the lead.
  • About point 3. The question is not whether "martyr" was uttered or not. The question is the context. What exactly is the quote supposed to show? "Martyr" is a very common term for being "killed". For example, the BBC source uses it in exactly this way. "We will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown... as the ones who used guns". The quote I gave earlier was also totally innocuous. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all points made by User:Kingsindian. DocumentError (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you two may have misunderstood and I apologize for not having articulated my thoughts better. I will try here.
Point 2: The point about newspapers was to substantiate any of the claims currently under discussion here and to copy their style for the sake of NPOV. Basically, if the newspaper attributes a claim to a source or sources, then it is OK for it to be attributed as such. The presence of the claim in newspapers can also that it is potentially noteworthy (i.e., not obscure, not unsubstantiated, and not given undue weight). Here, the difference would be mentioning the IDF source, rather than the book. What the book then cites is irrelevant here if we are not including it in the article. If your argument is to completely disregard these RS, then we have a disagreement.
Point 3: I am not one to discuss what martyrdom is or is not, and I think doing so can get close to OR. I mentioned the newspapers here for the sake of relevance and weight. It appears that the issue of expressing a desire for martyrdom was an in issue in the media and in investigations. This is more than just whether the word "martyr" was uttered or not. With The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and the ITIC report, including merely one short sentence like "A number of the flotilla passengers who were killed had reportedly expressed a desire to die as martyrs," would be sufficient and accurate per the sources. --Precision123 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am afraid the point about newspapers still makes no sense to me. Firstly, the point about repeating the information "40 hardcore activists" according to the official Israeli report is not addressed. Secondly, the book is citing the Jerusalem Post, a newspaper. And the argument is that it is not undue...because newspapers report it, quoting the IDF? Kingsindian (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not talking about interpreting what martyrdom means, but the relevance. The question is, what exactly is the statement supposed to show? A statement by the UN Palmer report questioning the motives of IHH is already present in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually yes. Whether an issue has been presented and discussed by reliable sources is a factor in determining due weight, so no need to patronize.
  • Books can be difficult to evaluate at times (much time and space here was devoted to that), but newspapers are fairly easy. That is why they are important here. Do the newspapers (reliable, secondary sources) present these issues in their reports? Do they present them as fact or attribute them to another source? If you still do not understand this, I cannot help you further.
  • According to the sources, it looks like the martyrdom issue has some relevance, and it extends beyond the Palmer report. Again, a short sentence in the "Flotilla participants" section like "A number of the flotilla passengers who were killed had reportedly expressed a desire to die as martyrs," would be accurate and well sourced, and it may help quell this part of the debate. --Precision123 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I will just respond to the first point. There was no implication of patronizing. Communication is hard enough without people doing mind reading. I said I did not understand your argument, and I meant that, and nothing more. Regarding your comment, I already said, the Jerusalem Post article quotes the IDF. And I remind you again that the claim of "40 hardcore activists" which was from an (later) official Israeli report, is already present in the article (indeed the lead of the article). The Haaretz article which you referenced is quoting Israeli intelligence about the "40 hardcore activists". Similar stuff with the Jewish Chronicle article. Leaving aside the different numbers, this is the same group being talked about. Kingsindian (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The patronizing comment was in reference to the sentence you made using an ellipsis (apparently questioning the idea that the presence of an issue in reliable sources is a factor in determining due weight).
  • To respond again, OK, so JPost quotes the IDF. What is your point? If the statement is attributed in a RS to another source, be it the IDF or Mickey Mouse, then let's attribute it. Frankly I don't see the issue. In addition, there are other newspaper reports here besides JPost.
  • Re the 40 people: "This is the same group talked about." Again, what's your point? If it's the same group talked about, then add a little comma in the body of the article and say "the IDF suspects that this group may have been paid mercenaries." Easy. Done. --Precision123 (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes--Per Darkness Shines, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Keep sources but open to rewording Per WP:YESPOV the project seeks to add reliably sourced points of view, not remove them. However it's perfectly fine to attribute POVs, and even to reasonable clarify (i.e. this was one ship among many) as others above have pointed out. -- Kendrick7talk 02:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kendrick7: I do not understand how WP:YESPOV applies. The issue about the ships is not attribution, but relevance. What is the relevance of some ships in the flotilla carrying cargo and some passengers? To take a humorous example, should we add Israeli/Arab statements about Hummus also in the article? Also, what about the other statements in the paragraph? Kingsindian (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I admit that the wording of the second part is somewhat gauche. Effectively: These people were willing to die for what they believed in; having died they have no one to blame but themselves. That implication, as currently worded, probably does indeed fail WP:NPOV. You've made a good point, and as such, I've clarified my vote as not merely outright support. But, if a reliable source has claimed that some of these people were paid agents of the Turkish government, that at the very least belongs in the article, per WP:PRESERVE, with proper explicit attribution if it happens to be a minority POV. -- Kendrick7talk 08:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No. The claim about the cargo must have come from IDF and could not be verified by a neutral party. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Emesik (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The reference cited is Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Gaza_flotilla_raid#Ships. For me, the issue is not whether its true or not, but that it is irrelevant. What is the relevance if three ships carried cargo and three passengers? As I said, if we want to include irrelevant claims, let's include the Arab/Israeli debates over who created Hummus. Kingsindian (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to take a yes or no definitive opinion on this issue. International relations (IR) can be a troublesome area -- none moreso than the Middle East conflicts. The way I would approach they issue, is this. If there are sources which state "XYZ", in this field of study one should attribute to their authors. The reason for this is IR is more often matters of opinion than matters of fact. Wikipedia should reflect this as well. I do hope it helps just a little. PNGWantok (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There are questions of reliability of the sources and due weight. These should not be ignored.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2014 (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.


Some guy who joined ISIS[edit]

I have reverted this edit. If some guy was on the flotilla and then wrote a book and then in the future joined ISIS, what on Earth does this have to do with the flotilla? Kingsindian  11:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Shows how much some wanted to be martyrs. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Martyr by time travel? Kingsindian  11:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope, he did not get his martyrdom there, so sought it elsewhere. Perhaps he was one of those wishing for the "martyrs death" on the Mavi? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If he was looking for martyrdom on the flotilla, and attacked soldiers etc. please find a source that says so. Otherwise it is pure speculation. People change political affiliations all the time. Many left wingers become right wingers and vice versa. Right now, it is simply one guy who is alleged to have done something in the future after being a passenger in the flotilla in the past. This has nothing to do with flotilla at all. Kingsindian  11:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It has as Mavi Marmara was explicitly mentioned by WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of mentioning WP:RS. Nobody is denying that the guy was on the flotilla. Does that mean everything some guy on some boat does afterwards is related to the flotilla raid? This is silly. ISIS did not even exist in 2010. This is pure guilt by association. Kingsindian  13:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes if it mentioned by WP:RS then it meets WP:DIVERSE notability guideline as the WP:RS think its WD:DUE to mention it.--Shrike (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It is blatant coatracking and accordingly a violation of WP:NPOV. I would remind contributors that this article is covered by ArbCom sanctions, and that they are accordingly expected to comply with policy - which includes not engaging in baseless speculation as to what motivated someone who did something in 2010 to go on to do something else entirely in 2014. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of this, especially considering that the source used to support this edit seems to blame the activists for attacking the commandos, rather than the other way around. As if the commados had just been there, hanging from ropes in the Mediterranean, and out of nowhere the activists sail in ships and start beating them up. We've covered previously what the meaning of seeking martyrdom is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Ya'akov Bolinet Alniak is not some guy, he was avery prominent member of IHH and his death is mentioned by many reliable sources. He wrote the book about flotilla as a participant and I dont know why I was reverted after adding a WP:RS.--Tritomex (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
He was so prominent that he wasn't even mentioned in the article before? Please. Anyway, nobody reverted you for adding a WP:RS. Anyone can write a book on anything. What on Earth do his supposed activities in 2014 have to do with the flotilla raid in 2010? I ask Darkness Shines to stop edit-warring, self-revert and open an RfC if he wishes to include it. Not to mention that the edit summary is not acceptable. Kingsindian  07:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If the connection is noted by a reliable source it is relevant to this article. If the connection is not noted by a reliable source it is not relevant to this article. Not sure what you're all debating about. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
A reliable source can be used to establish that some person X was present in the flotilla. But one does not add every piece of information which appears in newspapers into WP. If someone can tell me what relevance do some guy's actions in 2014 have to do with some event which happened in 2010, I will be happy to include it. Kingsindian  01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you don't understand. Nobody has to explain anything if the proposed content is included in a reliable source. See WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@Brewcrewer: that isn't what Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says. We don't include everything every reliable source says, we look at the balance of coverage in a range of sources, and then decide what to include on the basis of weight. Even the source cited (which is clearly partisan) isn't actually discussing the flotilla in any detail, it is discussing the reported death of an individual. Unless and until it can be shown that articles on the flotilla discuss this individual and his later links with ISIS, it seems entirely undue to include the material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you didn't quote wp:npov when basing your argument on that policy. Rightfully so because NPOV and WP:UNDUE (both of which are policies on how to deal with opposing viewpoints) never say what you claim it does. The two listed sources are national papers and reliable. WP:RS/N will agree full throatily. The opposition appears to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing about the basis of WP:V. There is nothing new in any arguments given. As I said earlier, if you wish to include it, open an RfC. Kingsindian  20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, you wrote that "Nobody has to explain anything if the proposed content is included in a reliable source". That is what I responded to. It is factually incorrect. As for WP:NPOV, policy is clear: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news". Though describing the later connection between Alniak and ISIS as 'about the subject' of this article is questionable (and the source cited clearly isn't 'impartial'). And for the record, the disputed edit cited one source, not two. A source which incidentally hedges its bets on whether Alniak is actually dead or not (or even whether he joined ISIS or not). The headline says he is dead, but the body of the text, qualifies the statement: "according to Turkish reports..." The edit as written isn't even supported by the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Panel of 5 legal experts[edit]

@Drsmoo: I have moved the paragraph back to after the Palmer report. This is a different report, by an independent panel of 5 experts, reporting to the UNHRC, and talking about the legality, and in response to the Palmer report. It is not useful to move it together with the earlier report, which was mostly about testimonies by the passengers involved, though it also rendered an opinion on the blockade. Kingsindian  09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: To begin, you are incorrect in describing it as an independent panel. The panel was entirely composed of long-standing UNHRC appointed United Nations Special Rapporteurs. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 There are two UN organizations/commissions/reports on the legality of the raid and the blockade. Those are the Palmer Report and the reports issued by the UNHRC. It is blatantly a violation of neutral POV to begin with the UNHRC, then go to the Palmer report, and then include a latter rebuttal from the UNHRC of the Palmer report. Doing so gives preference to the UNHRC. It's questionable why a UNHRC rebuttal of the Palmer report even needs to be included in the opening paragraphs of the article. For example, in the main article, objections to the UNHRC report are expressed by the United States and European Union. Yet these objections aren't presented as a counterpoint in the opening paragraphs (only Israel's are, which creates a false impression). If every report, and rebuttal, and counter rebuttal were posted the article would never end. Hence the specific and selective use of when/where/why a rebuttal is included in this particular situation is worth keeping in mind with regard to POV. The best solution with regard to POV in the opening section of the article is to move all UNHRC conclusions to one paragraph (noting that they are separate reports) and the Palmer Report conclusions to a separate paragraph. Otherwise, the UNHRC rebuttal (and the response by Israel to the UNHRC probe) should be left in the more detailed main section of the article where other rebuttals are included. Drsmoo (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added US and EU responses to UNHRC probe to the opening paragraphs to maintain consistency between the opening paragraphs and the bulk of the article with regard to reports and responses. Drsmoo (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I am not incorrect in describing them as independent, that is how it is described in the source1, source2. UN Rapporteurs are special outside experts who report to a deliberative body, like the UNHRC. This is even mentioned in the wiki page you helpfully linked. Of course, how independent they are can be questioned: it is made clear that it was reporting to UNHRC.
  • As mentioned in the article, the Palmer report was not even set up to examine matters of law. Unlike the 5 member expert panel, it was not composed of international law specialists. Nevertheless, since it is a notable (and lone UN) report that concluded one part of the blockade was legal, it is included. There is only one data point anywhere that concludes that (part of) the blockade is legal.
  • I also do not agree with including the US or EU response, the lead is not the place for responses to the (initial) UNHRC report. I am against this practice of "giving the last word" to this or that country. The response by Israel is included, because it is directly affected. US is only one country out of many in the UN. Are we going to list the response by every other country as well? Please note that NPOV does not mean false balance. The EU statement is similarly out of place, though it says the opposite of the US. I have reverted this edit per WP:BRD, we can discuss more if you like. Kingsindian  11:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You were incorrect in describing it as an independent panel. Additionally both of your sources are the same reuters article. It was a panel of long-standing UNHRC appointed Special Rapporteurs who were in no way, shape or form independent from the UNHRC. In the reuters article they are described as "independent U.N. rights experts." This is not describing the panel itself as independent, which it was not. UN Special Rapporteurs are not outside experts, and that term does not exist anywhere in the article. They are appointed by the UNHRC, and their "independent status" it to governments, not to the UNHRC. "Special Rapporteur, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Independent Expert are titles given to individuals working on behalf of the United Nations (UN) within the scope of "Special Procedures" mechanisms, who bear a specific mandate from the United Nations Human Rights Council, either a country mandate or a thematic mandate." "Appointed by the Human Rights Council of the UN, these mandate-holders act independently of governments." So no, it is not an independent panel and they are are very much part of the UNHRC. The five members were "Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/ODSchutter.aspx); Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Health/Pages/SRRightHealthIndex.aspx); Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque (http://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/SRWater/Pages/CatarinaDeAlbuquerque.aspx); Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, María Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/MSepulveda.aspx), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk." (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/CountriesMandates/PS/Pages/SRPalestine.aspx) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 All of whom were appointed by the UNHRC in 2008, three years prior to the panel in question.
I reject your edit attempting to sandwich the Palmer report between the UNHRC. It's curious that you're against "giving the last word to this or that country" but are comfortable giving both the first and last word to the UNHRC. If you're comfortable with a rebuttal to the Palmer Report from a non-involved player, than you should be comfortable with a similar rebuttal to the UNHRC report. Either both reports should have equal treatment, or neither one should have a rebuttal. Drsmoo (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I accept your point that the "independent" refers to "independent of governments", rather than "independent of the UNHRC". I apologize for my own slight confusion and unclear statement about "outside experts". However, it is already made clear in the lead that it is a UNHRC panel.
  • Your second point. I don't see any contradiction. I objected to you inserting responses by arbitrary countries to the initial UNHRC report, which is totally irrelevant to where the report of the UNHRC 5 member panel should be placed. Note that the 5 experts were specifically addressing the question of the blockade and the flotilla (the subject of the article). The edit you made was responding the UNHRC report which responded to the flotilla. That is totally undue. One cannot arbitrarily add (some) responses to responses. The article is not about UNHRC, but about the flotilla.
  • When you say that I "sandwich" the Palmer report between two UNHRC reports, that is technically correct. However, that is simply the chronological order. You may feel that it is giving undue weight to the UNHRC, but this is the way the affair played out. The Palmer report was simply a report by a panel commissioned by the Secretary General. It had no special privileges, but was meant as a political process. It is not me who "sandwiched" the report, but the UN which did it. I am quite aware the Israel considers the UNHRC biased, but that is specifically mentioned in the lead. Kingsindian  01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Chronological order doesn't dictate how introductory paragraphs on wiki pages are arranged. Maintaining a neutral point of view does. You are incorrect in your assertion that the five UNHRC Special Rapporteurs were not addressing the Palmer Report. The comments by the five UN Special Rapporteurs were directly in response to the Palmer Report. As both the official article on the subject from the Human Rights Council, and the Reuters article show.
The title of the report by the UNHRC is as follows: How can Israel’s blockade of Gaza be legal? – UN independent experts on the “Palmer Report” ==
"Commenting on the report of the Panel of Inquiry on the flotilla incident of 31 May (Palmer Report), released this month, a group of United Nations independent experts* criticized its conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal."
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363
The reuters article says as follows: "The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."
The four-year blockade deprived 1.6 million Palestinians living in the enclave of fundamental rights, they said.
"In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians," they said in a joint statement." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913
The state of the introductory paragraphs is a UNHRC report, than the Palmer report, than a direct rebuttal from the UNHRC of the Palmer report. This does not present a neutral point of view. Especially given that you wish to remove the responses from the US and European Union. Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Its the sources who make the connection if the sources about the commission mention the EU and US responses that its WP:DUE to include them.--Shrike (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: There are two separate issues here:

  • If you consider the order in which the lead paragraphs are presented to fail NPOV, then one can discuss and perhaps open an RfC for determining the proper order.
  • Your second edit has arbitrarily taken a data point. This fails false balance. If one wants to include responses to the first UNHRC report, then include reponses by all countries, not just the US/EU. Is there some special reason that the US/EU response deserves inclusion? The EU response does not even say anything about the report, but only that it should be submitted to the Palmer probe. The US response is a typical boilerplate response. Are we going to include the Hamas response, the Turkey response, the Arab League response, and so on? Kingsindian  07:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The US and EU responses were included as that information is already presented elsewhere in the article. Personally I think all responses, including the UNHRC response, should be removed from the introductory paragraphs and should remain in the main body of the article.Drsmoo (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid there is again a false balance here. The responses by US/EU are simply the responses which every country makes towards the UNHRC report. As I have now added, the UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. Is there some NPOV problem by only including the response of the 1 and (part of) the 15? I have tagged as undue the statements by EU and US for now, but they should be removed. We are supposed to be neutral as editors, that does not mean balancing the responses when the reality is unbalanced. As to the the 5 member panel, it was not a response in the sense of the response which you added. This was not a response by a particular country, but a panel set up to investigate the legality. It found what everyone else has found, including the Red Cross, as mentioned in the source. I have reorganized the passage for now to put both the UNHRC reports together. Though I do not agree with your reasoning, I do not wish to argue the point. Kingsindian  08:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
In that case, we are also giving too much importance to the UNHRC, a body which has a bad reputation for being composed by the worst human rights violators in the world and being extremely obsessed with Israel. Why is the UNHRC response against the Palmer report included? (which was a special committee of the UN set up to investigate the naval blockade and the flotilla incident, much more important than the UNHRC "independent" report). After all, it's already explained at the beginning of the paragraph that the UNHRC considers the blockade is illegal. Explaining it twice seems undue.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
They are two separate reports. Editors are free to hold opinions, including that UNHRC is composed of the world human rights violators of the world, and that the five independent experts were all biased, and the 30-1 vote in the UNHRC was also biased, but WP:JDLI is not an argument. If you feel that the UNHRC is given too much weight, open an RfC. On an unrelated note, what happened to this? Kingsindian  20:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The second one wasn't a "report" it was the UNHRC issuing a rebuttal to the Palmer report. It is undue to have the opinion of the UNHRC, then the Palmer report, and then have a rebuttal from the UNHRC of the Palmer report. The fact that it is presented misleadingly so as to appear that the rebuttal was independent of the UNHRC makes it even worse. Drsmoo (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I have moved both the UNHRC reports together. I do not agree with your arguments, but I don't feel like arguing over a relatively minor point. However, I am more than willing to argue over the major point of whether the second report should be excluded from the lead. If that is your position, make arguments, and I will respond. The second UNHRC report finds what every other data point has found, about the illegality of the blockade. As the Reuters source notes, it is the same position which the Red Cross holds, among many others. It is the Palmer report which is the outlier, not the 2nd UNHRC report. Kingsindian  23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There's only one UNHRC report, if you have a link to a second please provide it. What you're referring to as a second UNHC report is rather a rebuttal of the Palmer report that was issued. I think your recent edit makes senseDrsmoo (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fine, so we agree on this issue. I have now removed the extra cruft of UNHRC vote of 30-1 and US/EU responses etc. now that the overall issue of NPOV seems resolved. If you have any objections, let me know. Kingsindian  00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No we do not agree on the issue at all, having some criticism of the report in the lede is DUE and follows NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines: I was not talking to you; indeed, it is impossible to talk to a person who is not present in the discussion. Please stop edit warring. This is twice now that you have ignored WP:BRD and reinstated the edit. Your argument here simply repeats your edit summary before: there is nothing except WP:JDLI. This article is not about UNHRC: it is about the flotilla raid. The vote of the 30-1 in the UNHRC is not relevant to the lead, nor is the arbitrary selection of the views of the 1 (instead of the 30) WP:DUE in any sense of the word. If you wish to include this, open an RfC. Kingsindian  12:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Its WP:DUE as sources mentioned it and its not arbitrary at all as other views were not mentioned by the sources.--Shrike (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid that makes no sense at all. You can find a quote in any newspaper about anything. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS: I am not challenging WP:V. The Israeli newspaper (JPost) emphasizes the 1, the Turkish newspaper (Today's Zaman) emphasizes the 30. To add a cherry picked statement quoting the 1 instead of the 30 is silly. Kingsindian  12:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I did some minor rearranging and think the section reads quite smoothly now. Drsmoo (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment II[edit]

Consensus against is pretty clear. Formerip (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the following content be added to this article?

In 2014 prominent member of IHH, Yakup Bülent Alnıak who had been aboard the Mavi Marmara and who had written a book on the incident was killed in an American airstrike in Syria.[1] According to reports from Turkey and quoted by YNet News, Alnıak had joined the Islamic State and had taken part in combat missions, other reports claim he had joined the Al Nusra Front,[2] and the Turkish publication World Bulletin claimed Alnıak was there to distribute food to those in need. And another report claimed he was there to research a book. He is survived by a wife and two children.[3][4]

(Some discussion here). Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Solomon, Ariel Ben (9 28 2914). "Turkish activist that participated in Marmara flotilla killed in US strike". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 6 October 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Schwartz, Sharona (Sep. 29, 2014). "One of Those Killed in U.S.-Led Syria Strikes Had a Connection to a Famous Violent Incident". The Blaze. Retrieved 6 October 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Mavi Marmara gazisi ABD bombardımanında şehit düştü". Time Turk. 25 Eylül 2014. Retrieved 6 October 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Mavi Marmara survivor killed in Syria air strike". World Bulletin. 25 September 2014. Retrieved 6 October 2014. 
  • No This is pure WP:COATRACK. Some guy who was on the flotilla in 2010, joined ISIS in 2014 and was killed. Leaving aside issues of time travel and the fact that this article is not about IHH, (hint: look at the title), that he is a "prominent" member of IHH is also extremely dubious ("prominent" does not appear in the article quoted, an Israeli newspaper). Nothing comes up on Google in 2010, only a few hits in 2014, nothing beyond a day or so. If he was so prominent, why did nobody mention it before? The fact that trash websites like "The Blaze" are being used as references is indicative of the total irrelevance of this. The Israeli claims about the motives of IHH are already present in the article. Kingsindian  13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"A leading member of the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) who participated in the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident has been killed in U.S.-led airstrikes targeting Islamic State group positions in Syria."[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have struck out that portion, because it is a trivial point. "The Blaze" is a trashy source, but there is another Israeli newspaper (Ynet) which does mention "prominent" in the headline. Kingsindian  15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No. For a start, three of the sources qualify their statements with qualifications to the effect that 'Turkish media' have reported this man's death - which accordingly doesn't make them RS for an outright assertion that he is dead. And then there is the complete lack of evidence that this man was seen as a 'prominent' anything prior to these reports. Inclusion is pure coatracking. And a final question: if we were going to cite the Blaze as a source, why would we exclude their statement that "other reports suggested [Alniak] was in Syria to research a book and distribute food aid"? Citing this source while omitting this detail would constitute a gross violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The suggested addition already mentions the claim that he was there to deliver food, I missed the other excuse given and will add it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"Other excuse given"? Thank you for demonstrating once more your utter contempt for Wikipedia policy concerning neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the proposed text violates WP:CLAIM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No If other members of the raid participated in summer-stock theater, were champion cosplayers, or subsequently enlisted in the Bolivian army, would we include that? The only purpose behind such an injection seems to be to delegitimize one side in this debate, an inappropriate editorial injection. WP:COAT DocumentError (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 'No, per COATRACK as argued above. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No This information is about the flotilla and its legitimacy as a humanitarian effort whereas this article is about the raid itself. Discussion of the legitimacy of the flotilla as a humanitarian effort should be in the flotilla article.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note. This RfC was started by a self-confessed long-term sock of a banned user - see [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2014 (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.


RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead[edit]

See box. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Result: Do not include in the lead.

7 editors opposed inclusion, 4 supported inclusion and 1 was opposed/supportive dependent on other article content. The main argument in support was based on WP:NPOV, but a good counter-argument was made that, since the proposed text focuses on criticism of the UNHCR resolution and omits mention of any positive response to it, whether the text actually conforms to NPOV is at least questionable. The resolution appears to have passed comfortably, so it must have found favour somewhere. So, I don't see that any argument has been made which is strong enough to overturn the numerical result of the poll.

Should the following statement be included in the lead?

The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. The United States expressed concern about the tone, content and conclusions of the report and the European Union stated that it should be transferred to the UN Secretary-General's investigation.[1][2] 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ "US concerned UNHRC flotilla probe may stop peace talks". The Jerusalem Post. 28 September 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2010. 
  2. ^ "Davutoğlu disappointed over US vote against UN’s flotilla report". Today's Zaman. 01 October 2010.  Check date values in: |date= (help)


Survey[edit]

  • No This article is not about the UNHRC, it is about the flotilla. It is hard to see why the UNHRC vote is notable. There were a few newspaper reports mentioning it at the time, nothing else. And there is no justification at all for including the responses of the 1 vote against (US) and some of the abstentions (EU). The Turkish source (Today's Zaman) emphasized the "30" in "30-1" vote, and the Israeli newspaper (JPost) emphasized the "1", without mentioning the 30. The lead is already too long: dump this. Kingsindian  15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

*Yes Per NPOV, some criticism of the report needs to be in the lede. I have no issue with "The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions." line being dropped. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) - self-confessed sock of banned user [6] struck AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No The proposed section doesn't belong in the lede per WP:UNDUE. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes Per NPOV and balance, given the fact that UNHRC is mentioned twice, and the second time is to criticize the Palmer report. There must be some criticism of the highly controversial UNHRC.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No The details of the vote are not key elements of this article (WP:LEAD). The raid on the flotilla is the key element. --Dailycare (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: WP:NPOV. Is it the rule that anyone who criticizes X should automatically get a response? For example, there is a random quote by the NYT editorial board criticizing IHH in the lead, so we should include some criticism of the NYT in the lead? Also, this is a very strange way of showing "criticism": the vote was 30-1 with 15 abstentions, but only the 1 and some of the 15 are quoted, and the 30 ignored. This is a typical example of false balance. Kingsindian  20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No The lede is already too long and this level of detail is not appropriate for an introductory treatment. DocumentError (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes We should include it per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE as WP:DIVERSE sources think its relevant and make the connection--Shrike (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes It should be included due to notability and per WP:NPOV Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No This article is not about the UNHRC, and the lede is already getting bloated. It's common in articles on controversial issues but adding still more is not good. (a "randomly selected" editor who received "an invitation to participate in the request for comment") --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Obvious attempt to false balance. Not on the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Depends upon the length of the introduction. NO if the length of the intro is cut down. YES if the introduction is left at its current length.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • NoThis seems like an attempt at a false balance and an attempt detract from the value of the resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes Per NPOV, the statement is in requirement of balance. Noteswork (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]


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.