Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Rename or move

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

This was moved here to shorten the main discussion page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Gaza flotilla raid. -- tariqabjotu 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article renaming discussions[edit]

Move request 1[edit]

Putting aside that "clash" is very uncommon terminology here for battles of whatever kind, in order for an event to be an actual "clash," there has to be of course a kind of conflict between people of comparable fighting capacity. The term "clash" here, while trying to be fair to the Israeli side, is used in a way to suggest this was a battle between combatants, rather than a one-sided raid by armed military forces on a rowdy but nevertheless bona-fide peacenick partyboat. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like clash. Many sources are referring to it as such, and there was a conflict. The sources simply disagree as to the cause and the aggressor (in other words, everything! Except for the existence of it). Ale_Jrbtalk 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick with the status quo until the media decides on a name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to stick with the status quo until 7 June ;-) The page is move protected until then.
Well, I 'spose we could go through a move request...
TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Clash" has the benefit of being reasonably specific. "Incident" is horribly vague and could refer to anything. Did the ship's cat get sick? Did someone fall down a staircase and hurt themselves? Did the food go bad? Any one of those could be an "incident". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources calling it a massacre [1] so "incident" sounds like whitewashing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(interrupted) Ale_jrb, clarify please: Do these sources name the incident "The gaza flotilla clash," or do they simply use the term in passing to describe the event, for example as in 'Israeli forces "clashed" with international activists.' In any case, what we title incident articles here is only in part based on what news reports call them during the immediate aftermath, and the issue goes both ways: There are plenty of sources that may use the term "massacre," which, unless overwhelmingly supported,will probably have to discarded as "POV" likewise. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of this goes to show that the wisest cause of action would be to wait a few days to see how this pans out. It's barely 12 hours since it happened, after all. The current article title isn't so horrible that it needs to be changed immediately. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "raid", since many neutral sources put it that way. Also, just made this into an actual page move request. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not good. You should have waited with a RfM for now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is not good move requests are for use in different situations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever individual sources say, combined there is disagreement as to the aggressor - massacre and raid both imply that it was a deliberate attempt to kill as many people as possible, which isn't the general theme of the sources. Clash is somewhere in-between, is more descriptive, and is also the status quo. Until there is a clear agreement that it was a massacre or raid, I oppose changing the title. Ale_Jrbtalk 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massacre does not have to be pre-meditated, it simply has to be the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't personally have a problem with an RfM being opened now, though I don't personally agree it's ideal at this time. I'll !vote nearer the end of the RfM. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ghits don't tell you how many of those sources are RS and they're the only ones that count. I agree this isn't the right time. No rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request removed, no one dies. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chris 0: "We should wait..." Nah. Wikis free us from such constricted ways of reporting and editing. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funkmonk: "I prefer "raid." - Incorrect. The incident may have started out as a raid, but that terminology ignores everything else that happened. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Note also Bibi's cancelled trip: CNN. That spells "[international] incident." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too soon for a common title of the incident to be established in the media. We should wait at least a couple of days and then discuss any possible move of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we shouldn't panic. There will be plenty of time to agree on a name here once reliable sources have agreed on a name.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note how Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 doesn't use "massacre" as its main title, instead relegating it to an "also known as", even though I've usually heard it referred to as "massacre". It's not likely that this will be changed to "massacre", not least because it's obviously biased. Just give it up, please. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then again there is the Boston Massacre. It just depends what sources call it.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Tiananmen Square was not just about a massacre. There were protests there for weeks beforehand, leading up to the massacre. The story is bigger than the massacre on its own. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Massacre happened 240 years ago. Perhaps that's what some here mean when the say "let's wait [to rename the article]." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is from Haaretz, and is relevant here for three reasons: One, because Haaretz is a legitimate news source, so there's no issue of bias one way or another. Two, it uses the term "Gaza flotilla incident," as I have suggested above. Three, it references Netanyahu's cancellation of his U.S. visit, with an explanation that puts in in context of dealing with the political fallout from the flotilla incident itself, and nothing else. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, it's too vague. And yet again, plenty of "reliable" agencies use "raid". FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 2[edit]

The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera use the term "raid". In addition, the current title does not clarify who took part in the events. I suggest to rename the article to 2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar request appears above. It may be best to centralize them.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that we can focus to a greater extent on discussing how reliable sources report on the event in this section.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's please keep just a single "to move or not to move" discussion, things are hard enough already. Andreas Willow (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is from Haaretz:

Netanyahu spoke by telephone with Obama prior to his departure to explain why he had decided to cancel their meeting, The two planned to coordinate another date for their talks, and Netanyahu promised to keep the U.S. president updated as developments unfolded with regard to the Gaza flotilla incident.

It is relevant here for three reasons: One, because Haaretz is a legitimate news source, so there's no issue of bias one way or another. Two, it uses the term "Gaza flotilla incident," as I have suggested above. Three, it references Netanyahu's cancellation of his U.S. visit, with an explanation that puts it in context of dealing with the political fallout from the flotilla incident itself, and nothing else. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proposed title "2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships" is obfuscatory, and is obviously less effective than simply "Gaza flotilla incident." The issue that the latter may be ambiguous is however a valid one, which can be mitigated simply with renaming it to 2010 Gaza flotilla incident (unless there are other similar incidents planned this year). The above proposed title is in fact POV language, as it promotes the use of the word "raid," which is insubstantial given the gravity of the events. It likewise uses the overly-specific term "Free Gaza Movement ships" rather than the more general "flotilla" —ie. there is no compelling reason to be overly specific here, when there is no ambiguity about which "flotilla" the incident regards. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incident is awful. Raid is top of the search results, what about Gaza aid flotilla raid Also why do we need two move templates that dictate that the discussion should stay open for seven days? Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should remain where it is and with its current title until more information comes out. 'Raid' is a far more biased word than clash. Until we have all the details of what happened we need to be as unbiased as possible. However in the future this might be a reasonable change.Zuchinni one (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We go by WP:common name Raid is presently being used by the most sources. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that Common_name#Descriptive_titles_and_non-judgmentalism applies here. The event is too recent to state that raid is the best title ... although that may be the case in the future. Currently some reliable sources are using the word 'Raid' but not all of them. In this case it seems that wikipedia should stay as neutral as possible regarding the name. In a few weeks when things have calmed down it might be appropriate to change the title.Zuchinni one (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion[edit]

And the game here is...[edit]

Keeping the odd and infrequently used term "clash" (which implies some equality of force capability) for a week or so will result in the term clash being used more often in the press than it is now, because our little Wikipedia article will rise to the top of the google searches. Don't know why this happens, but it does, and so do some of the people who say, "let's wait to rename" the article. That said, I will leave this battle to others.KeptSouth (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That generally doesn't happen. We do however have a large contingent of people who prefer POV terms like "clash" which draw equivalences of certain kind, while rejecting others. The issue here now is to take a vote to move it to "incidents."-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I have seen it happen - Deepwater Horizon water spill, and White House travel office controversy are two examples. It's still an issue b.c. the longer it remains as "clash" the more hit clash will have on Google. Agree on "incidents" though, and will vote for that if someone ever organizes the voting. The way it is now, someone will just make a disingenous tally, of the scattered comments and then archive the whole discussion. Maybe I'm just too cynical...KeptSouth (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion on consolidating comments[edit]

The above sections regarding the renaming of the article are getting lost amongst the various comments. I'd like to consolidate discussion regarding renaming options here to a new section, and start taking votes. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to wait. There are already multiple sections above regarding moving or renaming the article. Currently "Gaza flotilla clash" is a good neutral name. If things change in the coming weeks then the name can change as well. But this just needs to wait.Zuchinni one (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the mainstream media will probably come up with a commonly used term for this event. That term is what should be used as the name, whatever it is. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli navy did not raid the boat. They alighted it to inspect it. Therefore, raid is a biased term.

Sources using the term "raid"[edit]

  Cs32en Talk to me  20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources using the term "clash"[edit]

Sources using the term "incident"[edit]

Various, including NATOMX44 (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

incident is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looslion (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources using the term "massacre"[edit]

Various.

The passengers were not massacred. But the soldiers were lynched. Massacre does not describe the situation.

Maybe consider The Gaza Flotilla Ambush of Naval Inspection.

Don't be silly. RolandR (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources using the term "attack"[edit]

Just to make sure this option is not ignored. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding?[edit]

I suggest that boarding should also be considered as a name; I think that clash describes the event as an all out battle between forces, and raid describes a surprise attack on the boats by the IDF as if they were at war. As far as I know, the intention of the IDF was to take control of the boats with force (boarding) to stop them going through the blockade. I feel that the name should try to represent the whole event, as opposed to the fighting between the IDF and the some of the passengers; boarding is a better noun for the event while at least being able to give some indication to the nature its nature unlike incident with basically says "something happened", clash while deals only with the fighting or raid with I think is to war-based in this case. Thoughts? 92.9.56.235 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding is Ok.

InterWiki article names[edit]

To provide, in my opinion useful, information about the article name debate, below are five of the current existing articles from non-English language Wikis...I know that some editors do not agree that English Wikipedia names should reflect or echo the international equivilents, but I find it can be of some use to see how the foreign editors are dealing with controversial naming issues.... doktorb wordsdeeds 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan - Incident de la flotilla de Gaza German - Ship-to-Gaza-Zwischenfall Swedesh - Ship to Gaza French - Abordage de la flottille de Gaza Hebrew - המשט לעזה (2010)

Well, what do these titles mean? I see that one includes the word incident, but could someone translate the other titles?KeptSouth (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The french version translates as Boarding of the Gaza flotilla. --Shawa666 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested name of article: "Gaza flotilla conflict"[edit]

Sorry if I'm interfering late in this debate and this argument has already been discussed. I suggest naming the article Gaza flotilla conflict. I see two advantages with this name:

  • It is neutral. It defines that there is a conflict, but it doesn't say who's the aggressor or who's "guilty". To call it boarding, raid, or similar suggests that Israel did something wrong. Now, it's my personal opinion that Israel were the aggressors, but I still find it POV to imply it in the name of the article.
  • It enables the article to discuss the conflict and it's aftermath in a wider context, not just focusing on the event as such, but what preceded it, and what happened as a consequence.

I would also like to point out that many people in this discussion seem to refer to it as a conflict, not realizing that this would be a great name of the article. :-) Benzocaine (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote here on article renaming[edit]

Keep as Gaza flotilla clash, or add date (2010 Gaza flotilla clash)[edit]

  • Comment: Adding this as an option, to discern whether what oppose voters are saying is based on mere opposition, or actual support for something. Alternatively "add date" will signify that you think the date should be added, ie. 2010 Gaza flotilla clash. -Stevertigo (w | t | e)
  • Comment: I am an idiot. I re-added this below, sorry! Once things settle down I'll combine the two sections into this one. TFOWRis this too long? 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As mentioned below, I think clash is too simplistic and the situation is still developing and is MUCH more complex. I think the only appropriate term so far mentioned is 'incident'. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adding year 2010 is against Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION. ... over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. Currently there aren't any other "Gaza flotilla" articles. --Kslotte (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting on the comment - I wondered about that. I 'spose my !vote below (were it not for the wishy washy "not now" option) would be for no year prefix, plus whatever I !voted for. I'm not making sense, am I? TFOWRis this too long? 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how reliable sources describe it.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose keeping clash with or without the 2010 prefix. Oh, and shouldn't you combine these two categories to avoid double-counting or other types of voting confusion. KeptSouth (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Flotilla clash makes it seem as though two militaries were engaging in a skirmish. This is not the case. A more accurate term would be 2010 Gaza humanitarian aid naval convoy attack or 2010 Gaza humanitarian aid mission massacre. Micro360 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose: Not a good description even by early information available.Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It started as a raid, but became a clash. Clash does not imply militaries. Its not Gaza flotilla battle or Gaza flotilla skirmish. If two groups of civilians attack each other, thats a clash. If civilians and police, thats a clash. Oxford Dictionary says 'a violent confrontation' Metallurgist (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The term "clash" is not neutral enough, it frames the issue as a confrontation, following IDF approach, instead of as a raid or attack.--Samer.hc (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Not accurate and not neutral --Vjrj (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Clash is misleading as it has connotations of two roughly equal forces doing battle. However on pure NPOV 'Clash' should not be used as it has not been used in much mainstream news and thus suggests both POV and OR for wikipedia. I have added my support for 'raid' below.Jacob2342 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Jacob above is bang on. Without any prejudice to who's right and who's wrong in the overall Middle East conflict, a military unit attacking a civilian convoy in international waters without provocation of any kind cannot reasonably be called a "clash", even if the crew members knew they were being expected by military and used makeshift weapons or possibly firearms to defend themselves. Agnostic about the year -- I don't think it's necessary to add it, but wouldn't mind it either. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a clash :: the stockpile of aleged weapons gathered by Israeli show that even heads of axes and sledgehammers and brooms were deweaponised contrary the other side warheads arsenal. The 600 person cruise ship restaurant should have more knives than my home kitchen. Ai 00 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Inaccurate, it was a raid as it is referred to as such (or as an attack) in the majority of the international press. DarTar (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "raid" is better than clash, used by more, and better, sources. --Rajah (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "clash" seems relatively neutral. other options are also viable, but massacre promotes a bias.
  • Strongly Oppose This is not a full equal force-force confrontation, the humanitarians were caught by surprise it's more of a raid. --T.tyrael (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Clash is the most accurate and descriptive term describing the incident. --PiMaster3 talk 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla incident[edit]

  • Support. Someone above said "incident" was "awful." What exactly is "awful" about using the word "incident" here? -Stevertigo
  • Support sounds like the best option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "incident" is not describing what has happened here and its very vague. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What's awful about it is that it's hopelessly vague. Someone falling down stairs could be an "incident". The ships having engine trouble (which happened) was an "incident". The first rule of article naming is to be specific. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Changed from Oppose to Strong Support. The more I think about it the more this seems like the most neutral title. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "vague." There are plenty of articles that use the form "..incident" on Wikipedia: Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 1960 U-2 incident, USS Liberty incident, Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Dick Cheney hunting incident, (see Search: "incident"). In what must be deliberate comedic recursion, your own comment here appears to be itself "vague." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, "incident" may be a fallback term if we cannot find or agree on a term that more specifically describes the nature of the... incident.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;-⌉ -Stevertigo (w | t | e)
Everything points to Zuchini being a sock puppet. He signs up in March, makes a handful of edits, then this article gets locked to new users and bam he is editing it, threatening users with bans, voting in polls etc. He doesn't even have a user page yet. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We should use a term that RS are using to describe the event, and include alternative terms used by both sides. This is a term that avoids description. RomaC (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the most appropriate title. Diplomatically all events like this are referred to as "international incidents". It will also still be valid 2 weeks from now when the dust settles. All the other titles are too 1-sided or capture only 1 aspect of the article. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is consistent with reports in CNN and other news agencies, and doesn't take sides. Marokwitz (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clash" doesn't take sides either. By the way, CNN and "doesn't take sides" in the same sentence? --86.40.172.76 (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I would prefer 'raid' because imho it is a better description, but that is original research and I can't come up with reasons why 'incident' would be incorrect. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me help you. Bodies? Blood? Soldiers slaughtering charity workers? --86.40.172.76 (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen videos where these 'charity workers' are teaming up ten to one hitting soldiers with metal bars less then a second after they got on board. I think 'charity workers' is not as good a description as 'aggressive and violent activists'. Andreas Willow (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: A more descriptive title could do better but this can be our fail-safe. At the least it can't be said that it is POV of one side and the word is used in other types of uncategorized events of the same gravity in international politics, conflicts and confrontations. Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Incident doesnt really say much about the significance of what happened, but it is quite neutral. Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose "Incident" minimises the issue, with incorrect connotations as random or merely casual event, without any will by any of its parts. As it was not a sudden riot, but a will-driven planned raid, "Incident" is not neutral and follows too much the IDF approach of an "uncontrolled event". --Samer.hc (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support accurate, though i would agree its vague
  • Oppose not accurate and very vague --Vjrj (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Any term that we use here will naturally be POV language simply due to the nature of the events and the politics involved. Therefore, given as much, I think that we ought to be as specific as possible in trying to describe the events in the article's title. Accordingly, "incident" is simply too vague to be used, and is in fact the vaguest term to be proposed here. cassius1213 09:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per my notes on the previous proposal DarTar (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per RomaC's argument. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

  • Support See the sources in the section above. The incident did not take place in Gaza, so "Gaza" seems to be misleading. "Flotilla", while being used by the Free Gaza movement as a PR term, is not the appropriate word for an encyclopedic description.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It more accurately describes the balance of forces during the incident. Also per above sources. --Dead3y3 Talk page 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose : a “raid” can be peaceful, and doesn’t adequately describe what happened. “Clash” does. Lampman (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raid (military) and Raid actually do not focus on possible peaceful connotations of the term, and I don't think that "raid" is being interpreted as a peaceful action.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the intention was for the raid to be peaceful? Lampman (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you are basing this assumption on what exactly? Jacob2342 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is widely used (perhaps even most used), it is better than 'incident' which is not sufficiently descriptive, and it is better than 'clash' which indicates a battle between armies rather than interception of a (group of) vessels by a patrolling army. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Raid is the best word describing the situation. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the name appearing the most in sources, which is consistent with naming guidelines. Could wait awhile to make sure the name has been settled on in sources though.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Closest thing to "storm" and "board". ... (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most moderate and accurate descriptor and most widely used.Webmap (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Better than other proposals. However Raid might be commonly used to describe the moment of the boarding by the press. But the whole incident has a beginning and an end and probably isn't covered by that description. Wikipedia has its policy and with is not like a news outlet so should try to do better if possible.Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It started as a raid, but became a clash. Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Widely used and far more neutral than incident or clash. --Samer.hc (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Raid" sounds more accurate to me --Vjrj (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ditto support sentiments. cassius1213 09:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Has been used widely in mainstream reporting and is the best concise description of what happened.Jacob2342 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per comments above DarTar (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People are saying it clearly started as a raid ... I disagree ... it clearly started as a seizure of the ship. Also raid implies a one sided attack, the activists had many opportunities to deliver the aid through Egypt or Israel but refused. They were prepared for non-violent resistance and knew in advance the ships would be seized. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it was a raid because it implied an imbalance of forces and was outside any maritime jurisdiction claimed by Israel. So when Isreal goes and bombs Cairo in 2015 with F16 it will also be a clash? Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per Nosfartu etc. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, better name and used by more and better sources. --Rajah (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it is most commonly being called a raid, and doing raids and following orders are part of the commando life, therefore it is a neutral term. KeptSouth (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Most sources define the act as a raid and this term is mostly associated with boarding acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.tyrael (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as 2010 Gaza flotilla clash[edit]

  • Comment: adding "status quo" option (with year prefix) for completeness. Can't say I'm too keen on it, though. TFOWRis this too long? 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The event is defined by the IDF boarding of the ships, that is the action that most RS focus on, and should be what we use to title the article at least for now. "Clash" voices one side's narrative.RomaC (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event was not defined by the "boarding". 5 of the 6 ships were boarded w/out incident. If the 6th ship was the same, this would barely be newsworthy. What defines the incident was the "clash" that happened between Israeli soldiers and armed activists on the 6th ship. Bob drobbs (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think clash is too simplistic and the situation is still developing and is MUCH more complex. I think the only appropriate term so far mentioned is 'incident'. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how reliable sources describe it.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Clash" is not really correct - it only describes one part of the event and is not the term widely used.Webmap (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No other precedent to require the date for precision.Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The term "clash" is not neutral enough, it frames the issue as a confrontation, following IDF approach, instead of as a raid or attack.--Samer.hc (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre[edit]

  • Oppose. Hugely partisan. TFOWRis this too long? 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Still reckon it's a bad choice, but I'm going with (a) wait, and (b) go with the most commonly used name. TFOWRis this too long? 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, Video shows only civilians in bright orange life jackets, and Israeli commandos, not a peaceful boarding party. Israel planned to kill people and not board the ship, and negotiate to bring supplies to Ashdod. Israel is lying, and we know it based on al-Jazeera's live and real-time report. (UTC)
  • Stonrgly Oppose this would be a very geenrous use of the word massacre, and in my eyes, a clear manipulation of the situation.
  • Strong support, many sources call it a massacre [[2]] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NPOV#Article naming specifically requires article titles to display the highest degree of neutrality, which this patently doesn't do. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Situation is still developing, but WP policy requires we use a non-passionate encyclopedic tone in articles. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wait to see if it is still used after things cool down Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Manson, then, didn't "murder" people, he "killed" them.

  • Oppose - This violates WP:NPOV. Marokwitz (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This term is only used here and there and is hardly supported by any reliable sources, certainly when restricting to sources that are not directly related to either Israel or Palestine. And indeed it also violates WP:NPOV. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Hugely partisan--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The term blows in the face of reality. There could have been 0 casulties if not an attempt to lynch Israeli soldiers. (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strongly oppose This is heavy POV and the pro-Arab side has a habit of calling everything Israel does a massacre. Metallurgist (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Violates NPOV policy doktorb wordsdeeds 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - this is very biased Zuchinni one (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's POV. At least some of the defenders were actually armed, wearing life vests and gas masks for protection and throwing grenades and Molotow cocktails at the soldiers. Though it is true that Israel made the first move, "massacre" suggests killing of innocent, unarmed civilians with the purpose of killing as many as possible. I sincerely doubt that this was the purpose of the operation. Benzocaine (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as 2010 Gaza flotilla clash[edit]

  • Comment: adding "status quo" option (with year prefix) for completeness. Can't say I'm too keen on it, though. TFOWRis this too long? 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The event is defined by the IDF boarding of the ships, that is the action that most RS focus on, and should be what we use to title the article at least for now. "Clash" voices one side's narrative.RomaC (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event was not defined by the "boarding". 5 of the 6 ships were boarded w/out incident. If the 6th ship was the same, this would barely be newsworthy. What defines the incident was the "clash" that happened between Israeli soldiers and armed activists on the 6th ship. Bob drobbs (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think clash is too simplistic and the situation is still developing and is MUCH more complex. I think the only appropriate term so far mentioned is 'incident'. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how reliable sources describe it.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Clash" is not really correct - it only describes one part of the event and is not the term widely used.Webmap (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No other precedent to require the date for precision.Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The term "clash" is not neutral enough, it frames the issue as a confrontation, following IDF approach, instead of as a raid or attack.--Samer.hc (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Israeli Attack on Humanitarian Fleet; Gaza 2010[edit]

  • Oppose. Massively POV - we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The world "humanitarian" is controversial. The stated primary purpose of the flotilla was not to deliver aid, but "We want to break the siege of Gaza". Many people argue that the flotilla was designed more for propaganda purposes than to deliver aid. Groups likes the Red Cross are "humanitarian", but these people were political activists with a definite agenda. Since we all agree that they are 'activists' "Israeli Attack on Activist Fleet" might be more apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stringly Oppose firstly, its quite a vague title. secondly, at the same time it manages to throw in a one-sided view through its incredibly selective wording.
  • Strongly oppose There was no attack, but an attempt at legitimate boarding (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Weakly OpposeThis language is hastily strong, however, it should be note that the boarding was illegal under International Maritime Law of which Israel is a signatory. Webmap (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, indeed, whether the fleet was humanitarian or politically motivated, remains a matter of debate and the title should not reflect any POV. Andreas Willow (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, hints original research. Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose This is too loaded and wordy. Keep it simple. Metallurgist (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This implies that an attack was intended rather than a seizure. The other boats were seized without major incident. There is clear footage of the passengers fighting the Israeli soldiers. It is not clear who initiated the physical assault. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2010 Gaza aid convoy raid[edit]

"Aid convoy" is almost as short as "flotilla", but does not have the military connotation. See the discussion above for the proposed change from "clash" to "raid".  Cs32en Talk to me  00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, everybody is calling "flotilla" so we can stick to it.Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the same content neutrality applies to Wikinews so it is important not to follow some popular expressions but to analyze and correlate the correct usage. For popular expressions there are redirections. --92.231.34.117 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this option does not add any advantages over other titles. as discussed in the "humanitarian fleet" section, whether the flotilla was actually for aid or political purposes is up to debate (irregardless that there was actaully aid on the boats)
  • Oppose Although flotilla is mostly used for a small fleet of Navy warships the general meaning is a fleet of small crafts so it is possible to use flotilla ( only without clash otherwise it indicates a military encounter). Furthermore it is not fully clear whether it was an aid convoy only if at all so flotilla is more neutral. Convoy itself should be equivalent to flotilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.34.117 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Rename For At Least 2 Weeks[edit]

  • Comment: Renaming now is a bad idea. We need wait for things to settle down and then choose an appropriate name. Until then 'Gaza flotilla clash' is reasonably neutralZuchinni one (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's not even 24 hours since this happened. We don't have to rush this - there is no deadline. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with ChrisO on this especially based on what he said hours ago: "Let's put this issue to one side for now. I don't think we actually need to get into the detail of what the IDF guys were armed with at this stage, particularly as what actually happened is still so unclear." Tewner (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: tending towards agreeing, with the caveat that sources should firm up of a preference much sooner than two weeks. Incidentally, I'd like to use the most common version used by sources, rather than what I/we prefer. Happy to go with consensus, though. TFOWRis this too long? 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Re-signed, edited comment[reply]
  • Support: "incident" says nothing, "raid" tells only part of the story and "massacre" is POV. "Clash" is really the best option, at least at the moment. Adding the year prefix is probably ok though. Lampman (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Situation is still developing, lets allow the pieces fall into place and then decide on a qualified stable name. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Actually I would support waiting a week or so (but two weeks is fine too), so that we have a better idea of the name used in reliable sources. Laurent (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not reasonable, this is Wikipedia! RomaC (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how reliable sources describe it.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we have a better title now we should pick one. Otherwise we might as well wait 2 weeks to edit the whole article (silly in my opinion) Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We should look at the encyclopedic value of the title, not the popularity of the article to determine the naming issue. --Dead3y3 Talk page 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Time is not an object that can be quantified with such inelegance or precise attention to the wrong detail. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Although it is true that too much page moving causes confusion and is not elegant, I think these arguments are outweighed by the fact that hardly any source uses 'clash' and my POV-opinion that 'clash' is not a very good description of what happened, anyways. Andreas Willow (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In two weeks, millions of users will read this article as clash, thinking that the event happened between two armed parties. After two weeks, when the news is not hot, nobody will be reading the article. A change has to be done before it is removed from wikipedia main page. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose ditto IP user 144.122, plus the fact that after 2 weeks, there actually will be a lot of google hits under "clash" because of this wikipedia article. At that point, several editors will then vote to keep the clash title.KeptSouth (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have more accurate titles available right now. "Clash" is not accurate.Webmap (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reasonable proposition. But if the title is POV, staying with it now that it is in the news is damaging Wikipedia. Readers could show aversion to the article as a whole. If we have to stay with one title for a while -which is reasonable- then we should chose "raid" better or "incident", however vague it may be. It portrays our ignorance at the very least.Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Metallurgist (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Wikipedia should not avoid its responsibility as a highly influential source. Keeping a non-neutral title as "clash" will bias the readers. The term "clash" is not neutral enough, it frames the issue as a confrontation, following IDF approach, instead of as a raid or attack. Wikipedia should decide a more suitable term and rename the article as soon as possible. Samer.hc (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong opposition. As others have remarked, "clash" is misleading and non-neutral in every relevant aspect - I fully agree with the unsigned comment above mine. By now, most English-language media reports call it "attack", "raid" or "incident". If "clash" is allowed to stay here for any longer, it's going to strongly bias readers, as they are more likely to read up on this on Wikipedia, instead of in the papers. (And that's not even mentioning the fact that journalists have been read up on their topics on Wikipedia, too.) Keeping the POV-ed "clash" just isn't an option. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Clash is not neutral and keep this for two weeks it's too much time. We need to choose another better title. --Vjrj (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Future events will not change the nature of the event reported in this article, currently Wikipedia is providing biased information and there is no rule saying that one needs to wait two weeks before correcting a flagrant error. DarTar (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. I agree with DarTar, we do not need to wait two weeks without renaming the entry, because, based on current reports, the information Wikipedia is providing is already biased. The title must be changed right now. --Msalgado81 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Wikipedia article title is incredibly biased relative to mainstream news coverage of the event. This is a soft vote of approval for that bias. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename for at least 20 minutes[edit]

Rename to Operation Sea Breeze[edit]

  • I suggested this earlier but my suggestion somehow disappeared. What's wrong with "Operation Sea Breeze" for the title? This is a completely non-judgmental name coined by the IDF itself and it is also widely used. See this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22operation+sea+breeze%22+gaza ? All issues that led to this incident be called various other things can be discussed and explained properly in the text itself but the title should be something that creates the least opposition to the terms used in it from any side. If any term with the the slightest judgmental hint triggers such a hot opposition, isn't it better to use a wording that has no judgmental hint whatsoever? "Operation See Breeze" should work, I think. Brk2
No. Why? "Coined by the IDF itself". It is immoral to use a name coined by terrorists. --86.40.172.76 (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your response demonstrates why the name I am proposing is better than whatever you are suggesting. IDF's being "terrorists" is a very judgmental opinion and "terrorists" is a very judgmental term. Without addressing or criticizing the merit of such view, it is suffice to say that such a strong term's applicability requires both attribution and explanation which can be made if the term is used in some form in the article itself. But title is too short for such explanations and, therefore, it has to be non-judgmental, does not it? Brk2

(left) This proposal is unacceptable. However, after linking, I noticed that there is already an article there. This should be fixed, adding a hat link there now.Shadowmorph ^"^ 08:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Raid of the Blue Marmara[edit]

  • Support: (a) this is a raid, (b) all the other ships are only included as background, and the only reason this article exists is because of the Blue Marmara, (c) most specific title offered yet, (d) titles like "2010 Gaza flotilla raid" are "clinical", and describe the situation, rather than naming it or any of its major participants, (e) these titles also seem to imply there are articles about other Gaza flotilla raids. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Aggree on other titles beeing "clinical". However the other ships were also boarded and were not just background. The interception was against the whole convoy. Shadowmorph ^"^ 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There was more than one ship and as stated above, it stopped being a raid when both sides very actively used weapons. Metallurgist (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might support with changes If raid was changed to seizure that would be reasonable but this title might imply that only the Marmara was seized ... rather than an entire convoy. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Israeli Navy engagement of Gaza Freedom flotilla[edit]

  • Support: Proposed. I was wondering why everyone sticks with "Gaza flottila". Is Gaza supposed to be the name of the flotilla or the place of the event? Still it happened quite far from Gaza per se. This proposal is precise as necessary about involved parties (still no date needed). Of what the blockade force did, engage is I believe the appropriate verb, speaking in military terms. This title is not vague and definitely not POV. This reflects what happened. On the downside is a bit longer than others, but hey... Shadowmorph ^"^ 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Rename_or_move&oldid=1089047264"