Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Israelis always first?

Why are the Israeli actions/reactions always listed first? In the interest of neutrality, I suggest that one of the sections, like the legal section, have the non-Israeli section first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.141.189 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order? "I" comes before "P" so Israel comes before Palestinians. Are you against alphabeticalorderism? :P 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite the joke answer this is a good question. It does seem like the argument for the Gaza flotilla raid viewpoint is mentioned first most of the time followed by the opposing view giving the impression that the first view point is the correct one so I have two questions.

1. Is there a wiki policy regarding opposing views and which order they come in? 2. If this article is NPOV then why does the pro raid view point come first? ( I realize that if there is a wiki policy regarding this then it negates my second question) Tcla75 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, both opinions should be listed first :). In any case, one side is given the "last word" while the other side is always "listed first", what's better? I'm not so sure... Marokwitz (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If one or the other is always shown first or second it shows uniformity within the article and gives it a standard structure to follow. Whether Israeli or Palestinian, one should always go before the other for the sake of order and articular cleanliness. Sixer Fixer (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Should this be included in the section on passengers? 50 mercenaries seemed to have been on board the ship

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452 The IDF identified a group of about 50 men – of the 700 on board – who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, mostly on the upper deck, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers who rappelled onto the deck from helicopters.

The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each of them had an envelope in his pocket with about $10,000 in cash. The defense establishment suspects the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.191.50 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit suspect I think, especially coming from the IDF. Best to wait for other reputable sources. Mshahidil (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The IDF may be far from being a neutral source, but that doesn't mean it's not a reputable source. There are things from both "sides" in this article that could hardly be considered to be coming from neutral sources, but they're still there to show each side's version of what happened. The allegations presented in the Jerusalem Post article are significant and should therefore be presented in this article as such. 79.179.96.247 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This was already discussed below, and the consensus seems to have been that we should include it in the "Israel's account" section at least. Sorry for posting twice, I only thought to search after replying 79.179.96.247 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Recurring topics

yellow

Some topics have already been discussed, but keep reappearing. I would like to remind my fellow editors to read the following topics before making pertinent changes:

• /Archive_2#Activists or passengers? - decision was to keep "passengers" for now.

Please add to the list as you see fit. — Sebastian 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER RECURRING TOPIC: The wording of the accounts in the Lead. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Addition_of_qualifying_statements_in_the_lead

There was a recent change here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365708414

Perhaps the wording should be discussed again.

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to move that section down here? — Sebastian 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you like, I don't know exactly what the standards are for reformatting the Talk page and I don't want to confuse people by accidentally handling it wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Separating 'Legal' section

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.

---

As per the opinions in the Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undue_weight section. I would like to propose we give the legal portion of this article its own page and leave simply a brief synopsis (maybe a single paragraph) and a link to the main legal page.

Besides the fact that this section is quite lengthy, it is also full of legal opinion. This is might not be a bad thing, but the quotes from RS for each side will necessarily be using a POV to support their own legal arguments. The strong POV here has also means it is difficult to know what is factual.

Do others also think it would be reasonable to separate out this section?

Zuchinni one (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• support - but people need to be aware of WP:GEVAL when it comes to anything including legal opinions and abide by it. It's a mandatory part of NPOV compliance that seems to get forgotten about in I-P conflict related articles. We don't give equal validity to minority and majority views i.e. editors shouldn't create a false balance of opinions. The relative weight should reflect the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• support Although references should reflect sources, I believe the future article (if it is made) would be better off by breaking down the main arguments (since there are many views) and then citing sources who support it.

• SupportBless sins (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it requires more than a single paragraph on the main page. There have been a few good articles recently on the legal issues in WP:RS, including the Christian Science Monitor and Slate. They identify the 2 critical issues as (1) Was the Gaza embargo legal in the first place and (2) Was it legal to stop the ships. We would be better off to summarize those articles, in a few paragraphs. The current section in "Legal opinions opposing the action" lists a long miscellany of names of scholars who are opposed without explaining why they're opposed. Many of the citations aren't in English, so most of us can't verify them. Moving that whole confused "Legal observations and opinions" to a separate article will just result in a confused article. --Nbauman (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Nbauman. Furthermore I think there is no need to mention legal "opinions" as "Professor A thinks it was legal, Professor B thinks it was illegal", since that is of no encyclopedic interest, rather focus on well argumented pro- and con- legal arguments based on specific treaties and international laws. Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support There is such a large amount of material out there, that can't be summarised in a small section. A separate article will do.--yousaf465' 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is already fragmented in multiple pieces and hard to follow and understand. --Nevit (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Not good to left over framed skeleton. Some stuffing is ok. Do not cut it of since this is informative. Unless the goal is disinformation (is it?) if is it then anyway oppose at lest for now. After investigation, judgment and prosecution it may be however separated since it will grow. What should left is the size of now. Ai 00 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support A split is needed because the article is getting WP:TOOLONG. A clear case according to policy. --Kslotte (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Kslotte is right, the page is getting too long. I also agree with Nbauman though, we need a better synthesis, not just a shorter one. Lampman (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I could see spinning it in working. One thing I noticed is that a good portion of the legal opinions say the same thing. It looks like editors are finding sources and just slapping them in. I would recommend consolidating anything to do with the Law of the Sea and intl waters into a single paragraph and simply using "some experts/scolars/whatever" instead of individual paragraphs for each headline found when a local paper sought comment from whatever professor they could get a hold of on the phone.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we go with the "some experts" approach, then I think it's important to provide reference links to each of the most notable experts' views, if not list the experts outright. Given the politically charged atmosphere, precisely "who" these experts are becomes highly relevant. For example, one expert cited in the article has also suggested that Hammas should increase their rocket attacks on Israel, assuming they are indeed in a state of armed conflict. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Since suggesting the split because the section was too long it has at least doubled in size. It either needs to be drastically cut down or moved. WP:TOOLONG Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above, the article is already chopped all over the place. I think it belongs on this page and only on this page. We don't need a massive tree out of one article. The few branches we have are just fine. Teafico (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Maily because I think that the facts (in this article) should be separate from the opinions (in ths legal section). ShalomOlam (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (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.

Map, take 2

Requesting comment on the inclusion of this map, which tries to create a visual representation of the international reaction to the Gaza flotilla raid. There has been a serious debate on the talk pages of two separate articles and we don't seem to be able to reach a consensus. We would appreciate the input of the community to help us resolve this issue. In addition the this section there are additional discussions here:

• Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Map
• Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_4#Requested_edit_.28please_add_image.29
• Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Temporary_takedown_of_controversial_map

Zuchinni one (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  States that have protested or condemned Israeli actions.

  States that only expressed regrets over the loss of life during the incident.

I think that a map in the reactions section would help summarize the international official reactions and present the information in an accessible manner.

I offered this map before, but there were some concerns with the map. This time I have changed it. All the sources can be found on the reactions article.Bless sins (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that a consensus on this map has been reached in the main reactions discussion page on it, although I see it was added again. Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Map

There has been strong opposition to this map and while it is good to see that Bless Sins is acting in good faith to improve it, there seem to be some fundamental flaws in including any kind of map like this, as can be seen if you look at the other discussion and the links in that discussion to a second controversial map here Talk:Gaza_War#The_Reactions_Map.

Even though the intentions are good I feel that this map constitutes OR and thus should not be included.

Zuchinni one (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will, once again, ask you: why does this map constitute OR? Every single country shaded has a reliable source backing its position.

Also, with all due respect Zuchinni one, you have only opposed the map. How about being constructive and working actively to fix any problem that you see with it.Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have detailed my thoughts as to why this seems to be OR in the other talk section which I linked to above. Would you like me to repeat that information here or shall I leave it in the other section? Zuchinni one (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this map would be better inserted here? Anti-Semitism is certainly not new and incidents like this are designed to fuel such sentiments. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I don't think this is OR, most maps like this around WP are made from RS... by users. As far as I can see, you are missing Cuba on the map, however. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comment by User:Thegoodlocust, I don't see any connection with antisemitism, unless you consider the State of Israel not a regular State whatsoever. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion regarding antisemitism is irrelevant to this topic.Bless sins (talk) 3:04 am, Today (UTC−3)

Yes, Thegoodlocust, all those countries have complained about the actions of the IDF because they hate the Jewish people and it's all part of a design to fuel antisemitism...? Seriously, please keep your world views off the talk page, it's not funny anymore. Can you read the discretionary sanctions linked at the top of the talk page,...seriously, you need to read them. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuba has been added. Also, please note anyone is free to edit the map and make changes and update it. I have released all rights on it, and you can modify it as you please within wiki rules (and common sense).Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this as original synthesis. The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No Synthesis. Just "States that condemned/protested the action, one way or another" vs. "States that didn't". No mistake. Salut,--IANVS (talk | cont) 06:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Marokqitz, can you explain yourself please? In particular, can you draw out statements from WP:SYNTH that would suggest this map is in violation of the policy? Can you give precise examples, with respect to certain countries? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that none of the reliable sources includes a map similar to this, and no source divided the countries response in such a "black and white" way. You have synthesized many reliable sources and while doing so, categorized each to "black" or "white". The latter part is original research. In many cases this is a misrepresentation of what they actually say, which is more complex than simply "condemn" or "regret". Hope I'm clear now. 07:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the map should be added, as it offers some useful info at a glance. What is the relation between this and anti-semitism? I do not understand how anti-semitism is related to a map of condemning Israeli action at flotilla. Can someone elaborate please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.84.138 (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, please, no one elaborate here. Elaborate on 203.112.84.138's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are also missing Peru condemnation. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me illustrate one of the problems I see with this map and why it seems to be a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

• England is colored red
• In the International reactions article it currently says "Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned the Israeli attack".
• So that seems like a pretty clear cut case for England specifically condemning Israel.
• However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)
• So at some point we went from a fairly neutral 'condemned it', to 'condemned the Israeli attack'.
• So what color should England be?

• People with the best of intentions can easily make mistakes here
• There is often some kind of judgment made about whether the 'condemnation' was specific or general WP:OR
• And when pulling quotes from multiple RS there can accidentally be synthesis WP:SYNTH

Because of this I am strongly opposed to the map in both this article and in the main International Reactions article.

At this point it might be worth asking for an independent WP:Third_opinion because this is getting to be a major topic with strong opinions on both sides.

Would anyone else support asking for WP:Third_opinion?

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment might be better than third opinion for this. I personally think the map should also be removed due to the worries of taking one leader's position as being the state position. The map needs work and some double checking so should sit in a subsection here while people work it out. Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the event: "Gaza flotilla raid". The map contributes no information about this event. Vikipedy (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni: You said:

However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)

Actually, the article says this:

He said he was concerned at the raid taking place in international waters. Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as "completely unacceptable", saying he deplored the loss of life.

Clearly, from the context, "it" is the raid (Israeli, since the protesters didn't "raid" per se).

Hence UK would be red.Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bless, I think you just proved my point about OR. The only bit of the article referring to what Cameron said, that was actually in quotes(""), was "completely unacceptable". So you are making a judgment as to what was being condemned.

A good visual can undoubtedly improve a reader's understanding of an article. But in this case the map seems to add very little, and in fact much of what it does add seems to be confusion ... thus the incredibly long debate about it. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

England is colored red? ;-) These ... countries ... would ... like to remind you about where their foreign policy comes from ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The inherent problems are described in more detail here for a similar article. Think about it.

• First a wiki editor creates sets, 'states that X', 'states that not X'.
• They then have to create set inclusion decision procedures to identify whether a state belongs in the X or not X set. These first 2 steps are already highly problematic because it's an information classification system that doesn't come from a reliable source, it's opaque, non-deterministic and non-repeatable.
• Once they have their opaque and personal decision procedures to decide whether something is in the X or not X set they have to find the input to that decision procedure, the RS. But which RS do you pick ? There will be many sources that make statements about what a country said about it. And which statement do you pick ? How do you know you haven't missed something ? How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements in a natural language into 'states that X' and 'states that not X' set memberships in a policy compliant way avoiding original research and synthesis ? It isn't possible. We're treating it like it's as easy as classifying integers into sets of odds and evens. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Creating sets can not a problem, nor a violation of WP:NOR. Populating these sets is where problems can potentially arise.
• In almost all cases, either the official (the primary source), or a reliable news article (the secondary source), uses the word "condemn". I don't think its a stretch, when we clearly have a source saying "Y condemned Z", to classify Y as having condemned Z.

• A couple other countries, don't use the word "condemn", but call Israeli actions "unacceptable". Do you think that constitutes as "protesting" Israeli actions?
• You pick the RS and statement that's most relevant. If you have an RS that says "Y condemns Z", then you take it. If another RS doesn't say "Y condemns Z", then its likely incomplete for a number of potential reasons (brevity, date published, angle it covers etc.). "How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements." Because almost all of these statements contain, very explicitly, the term "condemn" (either in the original, or in the interpretation by a reliable source). If they do not, we can either take those countries off, or find other ways to include them.Bless sins (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that this map also be temporarily removed from the Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid page until a consensus is reached either via the talk pages, RFC, or Third Opinion. That suggestion can be found here in the talk page for the Reactions article. --- Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize Zuchini, I should have given you a heads up on the RfC process. Looks like this has the potential to bog down with so many involved editors chiming in. Just to do it myself, I would like to second "The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified." and the idea of TEMPORARILY removing it until it is straightned out. It might be fixable but may not be. Best out of the main space for now at the very least.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In full disclosure I took a look at this map to see how it compares to the one at Gaza War because Sean mentioned to me that there's a similar discussion going on here. I thought I'd share my thoughts. This one is actually a bit better than Gaza War. Although that is mostly because the information is rendered in a less useful way: the red category trumps the blue one. But ulitmately this map has the same failings as the one at Gaza War. We make statements that our knowledge is exhaustive when it is really very limited. I only bothered to write this at all because I happened to notice the odd case of Gabon. The little I know about the country along with my general knowledge about West African politics, Israeli foreign affairs, UN politics, etc. made me think the country was unlikely to be Blue. So I checked the source. It is a discussion of the UNSC meeting from a relatively small Oregon paper.[1] It would be fair to categorize the Gabonaise ambassador's printed statement as Blue. But since the minutes of UNSC meetings are so easily available, I actually looked at them.[2] They include this portion of the statment which was not included in the Salem paper: "This new violence is unacceptable under international law and has already revived tensions that put at risk the indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis that had started three weeks ago. Along with the rest of the international community, my delegation firmly condemns these attacks, which are a hindrance to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." In light of that, Gabon should be Red.

I think that illuminates the problem. We suggest that we have exhaustive knowledge of Gabon's diplomatic activites when we don't even have full knowledge of the one three-paragraph statement that we've relied upon. In order to colour any country Blue, we would need complete certainty that it never made a Red statement (absent an RS). If we can't even tell if Japan has said anything we shouldn't assume that we know everything that Poland has said. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a very good point, and I acknowledge my mistake with respect to Gabon. By extension, you may ask, how do we know I haven't made a mistake on other blue countries as well?

Often, media (reliable sources) note not only reactions, but also lack thereof. For example, Canadian and American reactions' lack of "rush to judgement" (a condemnation is a judgment) is contrasted here with other countries' condemnation. So in this case, when a reliable source notes the absence of something, I think we can safely too.

What about Poland and the Vatican city? We would have to find similar sources, or remove them.Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think enough discussion is done and map can be inserted in article. --Nevit (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think its been carefully discussed and can be added. --JoeJoe11 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh ? Did someone respond to the very serious original research/synthesis problems that were raised above ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of support for the map, but I concede there is not yet consensus.

I am disappointed in the attitude of some users. Their attitude is that the map inherently has problems and therefore can't be included under any circumstances. Whereas a more productive attitude would be: the map currently has problems, but we can fix them through discussion.Bless sins (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out, while some blue nations maybe ought to be red, some red nations likely ought to be blue if more information was known. In regard to Gabon, they said "my delegation firmly condemns these attacks", yet it isn't clearly what is exactly meant - perhaps the attack against the blockade, i.e. condemning the flotilla, or condemning the media attacks, or condemning the attacks by other nations which condemned Israel without more information first. It isn't clear. I would refer to the source, but it doesn't contain the information it is attested to hold.

Bless sins, no, I don't believe such a map may be made. In similar matters where nations have condemned Israel they have often ended up embarrassed when startlingly obvious evidence to the contrary has arisen (i.e. the Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident). As such, many use specifically vague terminology, and allow the listeners to interpret it however they want to. So unless you know a manner to make a relevant politician from all of those nations make a frank statement on their position, it seems doomed to failure. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, by condemns Gabon clearly meant aggression toward the people on-board the ships. That is something understood clearly.--yousaf465' 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, without context I don't know what attacks are being condmned for sure, and despite your strong belief, you can't be sure either. Since the other 5 ships in the flotilla didn't attack the Israelis, nor have previous flotillas which were detained similarly, it could very easily refer to the attacks against the soldiers. I can't get context because that link it's supposed to be quoted from is not a good link. In reality, we currently have no source using that quote at all. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned somewhere else on this talk page, it looks like there are examples of taking quotes from sources that are not the official state position. Then others are just vague. So I doubt anyone disagrees that some work is needed. Is anyone working on verifying every source someone put in and updating it if needed?Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think adding the map could be useful. If finding the position of a few countries are controversial, those specific instances can be discussed first here; no reason to throw the whole thing away because of a few instances. The map is as informative as a map can be. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing the responses to the raid is original research. The only way a map like this could be used is if a reliable source categorizes the responses or there is something more objective, like UN votes or signatories to a letter of condemnation--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Discussion Organized

Sources Against IHH/Organisators

• #IHH
• #"Activists" sung Muslim songs glorifying the slaughter of Jews
• #Activist Bios and Goals
• #Remove all IDF photo unless it is approved by a independent source
• #About using IDF as source
• #İbrahim Bilgen
• #Intentions of activists
• #Flotilla "activists" told to write their wills before coming

Activist or passenger

• #Use of the word "activist(s)"

Weapons

• #New video released showing the activists waiting with cold weapons
• #new video shows prepartion of the terrorists arming themselves with weapons before the clash
• #Norwegian military expert
• #Czech Journalist
• #Current Weapons Picture is not NPOV
• Except for sidearms, Israeli weapons were loaded with paint balls for non-lethal crowd controlHickorybark (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

• #missing persons
• #Death(s): At least ten activists
• #Listing dead people

Passenger Accounts

Activists

• #Some of them shot in the passengers' heads
• #Report of American beaten and jailed by Israelis
• #Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Turkish

Crew

• #Israelis subdued captain by pointing gun at a child
• #Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Turkish

Journalists

• #NPOV issue Journalist's account

Politicians

• #Knesset member on board Hanin Zoabi denied IDF story

Religious people

Israel Accounts

IDF

• #interview with the captain thrown from the ship's deck
• #Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz"

Israel views

Goverment

• #Should the "armada of hate" be included

IDF

• #Gilad Shalit

Media

People

• #Israeli reactions
• #Israeli youths release balloons during a rally in support of the Israeli army

Turkish views

Government

• #Turkey to review all ties with Israel

Media

People

Religious

• #Turkey's Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva slammed Israel

International views

• #The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe
• #Most of International reactions section should be move to that page.
• #Map, take 2

Maritime and International Law

• #Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal?
• #IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law
• #Legal Opinions
• #Does this edit belong in International Reactions?
• #Some more legal opinions, on Reuters
• #Separating 'Legal' section

Terms

• International waters
• High water
• Cold weapon
• Ammunition

See also

• #SS Exodus in See Also section

Video Footage

Israel Defence Force video footage on Youtube

• Close-Up Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara
• Helicopter Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara
• Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers
• Footage of Navy Warns Flotilla
• Footage of Soldier tossed off board

Mavi Marmara live footage

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5vUmBK1dMM
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoF438DXYY
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slME4AluQys
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF8omtebCg
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr9bUPjCfB4

Eyewitness on Mavi Marmara

• Gaza aid activist aboard Flotilla Israeli ships fired before boarding Haneen Zuabi, who's a member of the Israeli parliament spoken to RT channel
• Eyewitness and victim recounts Israeli flotilla attack on an American boat and crew Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement organizers, spoke to CNN
• Transcript of Israeli Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi
• NTV Interview in Turkish [A transcript/translation might be useful] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.137.178 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel officials

• Apologize? "For what?"

Israel demonstrators

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtAJh9obxc

Turkish demonstrators

International demonstrators/views

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7re5GIaSRmA

List is in progress. I will check links further for original sources. Kasaalan (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Anyone support organisation of discussion titles under categories. Kasaalan (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is good work. I appreciate your efforts. If rules permit I suggest it moved directly below Table of Contents. It would be even more useful there. --Nevit (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So are the Al Jazeerah and other WP:RS footage of civilian footage from the ship going to be listed explicity under External Links? Listing only IDF footage is very problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whose blockade is this anyway? Requesting third opinion

I was recently reverted when I changed the Background section to this:

In June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after winning local elections, Israel and Egypt sealed their borders with Gaza. The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. Egypt closed its borders saying it did not recognise the authority of Hamas in Gaza. In September 2007, following rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements, Israel declared Gaza strip a "hostile territory" and tightened its blockade . Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza. These, along with the control of Gaza's airspace by Israel, resulted in a complete blockade of Gaza. The United Nations and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the blockade by Israel, calling it collective punishment of the Palestinian people, as it restricts the flow of materials for basic needs and for reconstruction of infrastructure and homes that were either destroyed, or severely damaged by Israel, in the Gaza War.

The passage I quoted above illustrates what the significant events in the blockade of Gaza. Almost all reliable sources report the events as:

1. Israel and Egypt both closed their borders when Hamas took over Gaza.
2. Israel later declared a naval blockade of Gaza.
3. The UN and various international agencies criticized the Israeli blockade and called for its withdrawal.
4. Free Gaza movement announced their mission against the Israeli blockade / siege.
5. Israel says its blockade is legal, justified; any attempt to break it is a violation of international law and warns against any attempt to do so.
6. Free Gaza movement goes ahead and attempts to break the Israeli naval blockade.
7. Israel intercepts the ships, leading to this event, says as per laws governing maritime blockade, it is authorized to do so; to enforce its blockade.

But we are not supposed to use the term Israeli blockade in this context. The situation is turning even more hilarious now. The initial reason for reverting my above quoted edit was that it was covered elsewhere. Now after removing the term Israeli blockade, and putting a synthesized statement “Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza” someone has inserted material regarding "Arab ministers …united front against control of the border by Hamas” and about an incident where a Palestinian fisherman died off Rafah in a clash with an Egyptian navy. Closing one’s borders, preventing smuggling across one’s border ,etc. is not blockade. In many parts of the world there are incidents involving fishermen straying into neighboring country’s border/ clashes. Even this insignificant incident (look at its coverage) is deliberately introduced here just to construct a narrative that can be seen only in Wikipedia ( or in some Israeli propaganda). There is no need to do OR here but it is obviously UNDUE. Even in the next sentence, whose references are talking about the UN criticism of the Israeli blockade, the term Israel is omitted. Similar is the status of the compromise reached about the first paragraph. The strategy followed is clear; whenever the Israel action regarding blockade is mentioned, mention some incident involving Egypt as well (Undue or not). If there aren’t any, and if it is clearly about Israeli blockade (like its criticism), remove Israel and just mention blockade.

I suggest that, wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context.

In short, call a spade a spade.

I request all editors to express their opinion on this topic which is central to this article ( not just to any section) to build a consensus.Walky-talky (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Walky-talky you have done a good and objective work. Some users may criticize specific points according to their affiliations that is not my point. It seems to be too long for me. But how can one balance such a complicated matter without omittance of major issues? Perhaps a short list without going into details will suffice. The rest can be read from main article. --Nevit (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the most NPOV way to do this would be to "Gaza Blockade" without any country names and have it link to the article on the Blockade so that people can get all the information there. This article should not be the place where we discuss questions about the nature of the blockade. That should be done in the blockade article. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is simple and short. Wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context. We are here to report what the main stream reliable sources say. Calling a a spade a spade is not POV. Some editors seem to have some objection to this usage; but that's how the media report; the UN says; the FGM says; Isreal says. We just need to follow it. I am not saying we should give all the details of the blockade. But it can be summarised ( even mentioning the role of Egypt) in 3-4 sentences to make it absolutely NPOV. Look at the Background section now; it gives as much details as possible ( even the rocket attacks) except mentioning the blockade declared by Israel and avoiding the term Israel while mentioning the UN criticism ( though it is unambiguously a criticism of Israeli blockade). Please compare it with my reverted version.Walky-talky (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has produced multiple reliable sources to say that "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza.", referring to Egypt and Israel. The reference given there talks about the military and naval blockade imposed by Israel. Hence I am modifying the sentence accordingly. Also there is no relevance for "Arab foreign ministers have also presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas" in this section. It has nothing to do with Flotilla raid or the blockade they were trying to break.Walky-talky (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption on IDF footage

The caption has seen some POV warring and it's about time to discuss it directly.

If you watch the video it is unquestionable that these are activists beating a soldier who is on the ground. The POV dispute is only whether this happened before or after the soldiers "attacked." The current caption does not explain this well. I therefore propose the following caption:

Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists beating a fallen soldier on the deck.

I think that should satisfy NPOV and adequately explain the image.  —Rafi  16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we just say 'The IDF released this snapshot which it says "..."' or 'Source X reported ""'. This would make it much harder for there to be any dispute.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What Nosfartu said. Neatly sidesteps dispute. This solution works with WP:PRIMARY sources from the flotilla, too. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How do reliable secondary sources not connected to the IDF, the MFA or to the Israel-Palestine conflict describe this image e.g. BBC, China Daily, whatever ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What Sean.hoyland said. Even better suggestion. If WP:SECONDARY sources have published the image we should use them instead. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but I believe the BBC discusses the video the image is from here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen most news outlets have just linked to or embedded the Youtube video. That's part of why I want an explicit caption; what's happening is much more clear in the video than in the image. I think "published by the IDF" is adequate qualification for NPOV.  —Rafi  16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides the [BBC, the Christian Science Monitor embeds the video here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal: If necessary, directly quote one of the sources to come up with an objective caption.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists attacking a soldier who just landed on the deck." That's how the CSM you cited describes it.  —Rafi  17:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was reading this and wanted to point out WP:PRIMARY says to not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source, because any interpretation of any primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. These are quotes from the article:

• The Christian Science Monitor wrote "this grainy, black-and-white footage shows Israeli commandos getting attacked in what the Foreign Ministry calls "life-threatening and violent activity." "
• The Christian Science Monitor reported "pro-Israel activists, meanwhile, say Israeli commandos were attacked by pro-Palestinian activists armed with slingshots, knives, and metal bars as the commandos rappelled from helicopters down onto the Mavi Marmara"
• The Christian Science Monitor quoted Ms. Yedidia of the Israeli consulate as saying "they were there to provoke Israeli forces".

--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to "shows Israeli commandos getting attacked." I don't think my caption proposal contains anything "interpretive" or "synthetic" regarding the image in question.  —Rafi  17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with quoting Ms. Yedida of the Israeli consulate, or the other proposals?--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's interpretive. Someone could put 'people acting in self defense against an armed assault by soldiers on their boat' and it would be no better or worse a description if it were attributed to the people who think that is what it shows. We should keep these things simple, neutral, RS based and make absolutely sure we aren't promoting a specific interpretation/narrative and excluding others if there are conflicting views. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's go back to "beating" rather than "attacking." That's the most objective description I can think of. I got "attacking" from CSM.

To 70.236.71.25: The image's caption should also be concise and describe the image precisely. Do you have a specific proposal that would accomplish this?  —Rafi  17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the image and caption here is better: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/middleeast/02media.html  —Rafi  17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC caption on a similar image, in the set of images in the link above says "The Israelis say their soldiers were set upon and beaten with bats, chairs and metal poles as soon as they boarded the Mavi Marmara. Activists say the soldiers attacked them first." i.e. they present both narratives. The BBC also use a caption that says something as simple as 'showing the violence on board the flotilla' i.e. ignoring both narratives. The NYT example you posted seems to also take the second approach, no narratives. I don't know which is the best approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Either approach seems good to me, but ignoring both narratives may be easier in small spacial constraints.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind this image is in the Israel's account section; NPOV still applies, of course, but the basis for having the image is the video's importance to the Israeli account. I still argue that "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists hitting/beating/attacking a fallen soldier on the deck" is a fair description of what the image shows and where it came from.  —Rafi  18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems fair to me, also. And after looking at the video, it's hard to fault the term "attacking". Too much waffling in the description--as in "Israeli's say"--seems intended to undermine credibility and is not NPOV.Hickorybark (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal: Enumerate some specific proposals from sources and then have a strawpoll.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

we have to take the idf footage with a pinch of salt i'd say as it's the army who has committed the massacre. overmore it's well possible the video was manipulated. the very least one can catch is that they didn't publish those passages which show the killings. also, they have confiscated cameras and mobile phones of the activists (and still not given back).--Severino (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"the army who has committed the massacre" is hardly neutral language, Severino.Hickorybark (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: "Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods hitting a fallen soldier."

1. Keep IMFA as the source; possibly add Washington Post or Ynet as sources as well.
2. Attribution given to IDF so that possible biases in the source are clear.
3. "Hitting" is neutral language.
4. "With rods" because multiple activists had rods, not readily apparent in this snapshot.
5. "Fallen soldier" supplies information from the previous seconds of video not seen in this snapshot.
6. No mention of narratives regarding who attacked first or was to blame.

 —Rafi  20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rafi, you keep promoting the IDF narrative. Why is that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sean, please assume good faith on the part of other editors and keep the focus on the subject matter. Thanks.Hickorybark (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm promoting the IDF narrative, then I'm doing so in a section clearly labeled as the IDF narrative. But as per Luisdanielmesa below, I think my caption is pretty neutral and supported by RS.  —Rafi  16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- I see there is more edit warring over this caption despite there being a 1RR restriction, discretionary sanctions and a talk page section to discuss the caption... I think some users are kind of losing sight of what we are doing here. The images we use should illustrate the important aspects of this event. What were the important aspects of this event ? Nine people being killed, 60-ish people on the boats being injured, some seriously, and 10 soldiers being injured springs to mind given its prominence in RS. That's what we are supposed to be illustrating, all of those things, not just one of them. We aren't here to facilitate the transmission of specific narratives and focus only on imagery that has been specifically selected for exactly that purpose by an interested party. Can I appeal to editors to try to step out of their partisan camps and work towards a balanced illustration of what happened both in terms of imagery and the associated RS based captions ? These edit wars/NPOV non-compliance issues are kind of lame. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other images available? You gotta work with what you have Sean... Posting a neutral description of what you have is good enough for me, because it describes something without giving a POV. If you feel the caption has specifically been selected then just point out the images come from the IDF and let the readers know. Do the best with what you have. The best way to be balanced is to not think about the sides and just write the facts (i.e. this MEDIA provided by SOURCE shows X). I Approve what Rafi wrote. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another way forward?

I added a tag to the material for until a consensus is reached. The discussion seems to be going in a somewhat circular fashion with some people saying 'I think X is POV' while others say 'I think X is not POV'. Since directly quoting someone doesn't seem to be resolving the dispute, it would seem there are a number of options:

1. List a number of captions and find one we all find acceptable
2. Find a new image
3. Seek a third opinion
4. Go to a relevant noticeboard and seek input

So maybe people could say what they aren't opposed to here, and then once we agree on how to resolve the problem we can start doing it.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a figure with a stick or similar object over his or her head. It could be an Israeli, or passenger or anyone. I don't see anyone being beaten. The passengers have disputed the IDF account. As we have two different accounts, the existing caption goes. First Verse (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Limited footage

Posting individual snapshots are misleading. As Cenk Uygur has noted, the whole engagement lasted over an hour but the IDF has only released about two minutes of footage, and NONE from when the soldiers started firing. They killed nine people with multiple gunshots, plus the 30 others wounded so all-in-all the commandos must have fired at least 50 shots, none of which they show on video. Did the IDF just stop filming once the commandos starting shooting? Of course not. The IDF is selectively releasing video to shape public debate, and Wikipedia should not go along with them by posting their few images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.241.63 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And they've also confiscated footage from neutral journalists on board and started selectively releasing it.

Why aren't there any photos of the Israelis with guns, of the international protests, or of the funeral of the victims?--99.50.129.231 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Soldiers Made Sure None Survived

Bodies arrived in Turkey all show at least on shot in close range.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/report-aid-flotilla-victims-shot-dead/

I believe this should be included in article.

--Nevit (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shot at close range would back up the IDF side, that they only fired in self defence - only those that approached with a knife or a club enough to be threatening to the IDF life would be shot.

I have noticed that Nevit is quite a POV pusher. I request that you try to be more neutral when approaching this article. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some had multiple shots and one with close shot. This is new evidence. Most of them where shot lethally not in foot or other place but directly. I agree that "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV. But it is not more a POV than they had sticks. I did not add the evidence to article directly instead added here to be discussed. My POV is what Israel did is wrong. But I believe that the article should remain neutral. --Nevit (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Nevit because stating "soldiers had non-lethal and lethal firearms" is a fact, and "activists had clubs (sticks) and knives" is a fact. A fact cannot be POV, you might like the facts or not. "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV as is "Terrorists acted as aid activists and attacked the Israeli army". In my opinion, close or far is of no real importance. I say this because some guns seem to have been taken from the soldiers, so you actually can't be sure (or accurate) when you explain who fired. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Luis on what is and isn't POV. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

From the article you referenced:

"Forensic experts in Istanbul found bullet marks on the bodies of all the victims and determined that one was shot at close range. The experts said the exact circumstances of the activists’ deaths would become clear in a balistics examination that would take about a month to complete.""

Even if the source is NPOV it seems that there is no conclusive evidence of anything yet. This should not go into the article yet. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture is getting more complete more details of killings are revealed. According to eye-witness photographer Cevdet Kılıçlar was shot in head when he was taking photos.

http://www.medya365.com/haber-101998-fotograf-cekerken-israil-askerlerince-olduruldu.html

I agree with you that we have to wait about one month to see whether Israeli army fired a final shot to injured or not. But we can quote the source to say some had near and far shots, and all had near shots. The source is AA a major news agency. --Nevit (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about one thing though. What exactly is far and what is near? Unless we can get some real metric I think this should not be included. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Those interested can look there. --Nevit (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

pro-Palestinian(?) activists

The lead sentence says flotilla was carrying 663 pro-Palestinian activists. What does pro-Palestinian means?Baharyakin (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggested all attributions relating the group to a religion or race be removed. See discussions above. The group itself defines the motion as humanitarian. The term pro-Palestinian is deliberately introduce to discredit the group. --Nevit (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you see above, it was a provocative action against Israel, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians" (Greta Berlin, organiser) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It means that they support Palestinian position over Israeli position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree w/ Nevit. Agree w/ Shalom. I think pro-Palestinian is 1) Clear to anyone who has even the slightlest understanding of I/P issues, 2) accurate, 3) Hard to contrue as an attempt to "discredit the group". NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a propaganda method. IDF earlier attributed the activists to Al-Qaeda etc. etc. But withdraw later. Humanitarian is what the group defines itself. If you do not agree on Humanitarian it is better to leave name without a attribution.

This is not a propaganda method. The flotilla may define themself as "Humanitarian" but that is not true. It's a sham. Pro-Palestinian is not accusatory. It declares their mentality, their actual purpose (ie. helping Palestinians) without judging them. 95.86.93.70 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)The Real Deal

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

--Nevit (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I would agree with both "Humanitarian" and "ProPalestinian". Could I propose, "663 pro-Palestinian, humanitarian activists,[6] as well as journalists and dignitaries from 37 nations,[7] known collectively as the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer it without any attribution and just making a link to their respective page. There are pro-Israeli views that believe they had missions other than Humanitarian aid. They will object to humanitarian. The topic can be elaborated there. --Nevit (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They DID have other missions other than Humanitarian aid. They said so themselves: they wanted to break the blockade of Gaza. In many people's POV, breaking blockades is an act of war, not of a humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian is accurate. Some may (some or many of them) also have been pro-Palestinian. Remove pro-Palestinian please. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Gaza refused to receive the flotilla's cargo from Israel, there is doubt that the cargo was in fact needed as humanitarian aid in Gaza. So maybe instead of writing that they were humanitarian, it's more neutral to write that THEY claim they are humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shall we go directly to the source? Here is how they describe themselves. And please go to the source to read the full page.

"...bringing in international witnesses to see first hand the devastating effects of Israeli violence against the Palestinian people ... We want to break the siege of Gaza. We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation. We want to uphold Palestine's right to ..." http://www.freegaza.org/en/about-us/mission

Is there any real question that they are "pro-Palestinian activists? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There were also journalists and humanitarians on board where weren't necessarily pro-Palestinian. My thought is that when speaking specifically about the activists pro-Palestinian might be OK ... but in blanket statements about the passengers it implies a bias that might not be present with everyone. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence is wrong. The cited source (the Associated Press) says: HAIFA, Israel — Hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists... There's no sign of "663" anywhere in the source. I think we need to be careful to make clear that not all the passengers were necessarily "pro-Palestinian". There were journalists and parliamentarians on board, too. Incidentally, I think in this context it's fine to say "activist" - it was the (pro-Palestinian) activists who intended to go through the blockade; the other passengers were aboard for their own reasons. Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFWOR. The problem here is that there were so many different people on the boat for different reasons that it does not make sense to lump them all into one group. There is an entire article devoted to the people on board the flotilla. The lead should remain as neutral as possible and not make any factual assumptions. This has been discussed repeatedly Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F, here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Use_of_the_word_.22activist.28s.29.22, and elsewhere. The terminology of Pro-Palestinian and Activist may be OK, but the problem is lumping everybody into specific groups. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be fair to call them "humanitarian activists" as their mission was to bring humanitarian aid to a "ghetto".--Severino (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As Shalom stated above, the term humanitarian is self claimed by the group. We can use it only if it is accepted by other sources. I prefer not to use anything if it can not be verified. --Nevit (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that while some of them were undoubtedly Humanitarian there have been people claiming that others were intentionally trying to become martyrs, and others were journalists whose accounts have been quoted and assumed to be NPOV. So my problem is just trying to put all the different people together into a single group. Thus I support a neutral term like passengers or people. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Both are neutral terms. OK for me.

The martyr video published by Israel came to be a previous shot by Iranian state-run TV. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

--Nevit (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this link, a Hamas leader is confirmed among the "activists". The article refers to him as "the leader of the Hamas terrorist network in the Netherlands". 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're suggesting using an Arutz Sheva source for this kind of info ? I assume you're joking. If it's true it will be available in multiple high quality RS in the international media. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A good point, here's a google search turning up a few more though, not sure of the reliability for some of them though. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Massacre refs

See this. The Scotsman newspaper describes the victims as "murdered" in the headline and as "massacred" in the text. The Irish Evening Herald (Part of the Independent Group) called it a "massacre" and used the word in a page-wide headline the day afters the murders. Sarah777 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"massacre" is a word which is loaded with political overtones. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Massacre is over-toned. Killings is enough for describing, considering the number of casualties. --Nevit (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, "massacre" is too heavy of a word here. Killings works just fine. Maybe if most people on a ship were killed, massacre would work, but that's not the case here. It wasn't a massacre, they were killings. Teafico (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the word "massacre". Soldiers killed civilians deliberately, outside "their" territory. Is there a number (of victims) from which on a killing is a massacre?--Severino (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of RS are not using the word massacre. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There were not civilians are they have taken war action by trying to break military blockade also they were armed so they couldn't be considered civilians.Shrike (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They were civilians (i.e. not soldiers) and they were nowhere near the blockade (which in itself is illegal) and they weren't armed. If there was any actual weapons (other than ordinary cutlery and common tools) I'm quite sure the IDF would have shown them by now. // Liftarn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going back to the old argument of what do you call a group of armed people going into battle who don't have a uniform or represent an actual nation? Civilians, maybe technically, soldiers, also technically, they really fall somewhere in between - English likely lacks a word to properly describe such people. Also, going toward a blockade with the stated intention of breaking it (whether you a gree with the blockade or not) is generally considered illegal under international maritime law, read the section in the article about it. Also, read in the article about the soliders with bullet holes in their bodies...

Either way, this isn't a forum for discussion about the issue, it's about writing an article about it in as NPOV a manner as possible, please keep comments to that effect. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone interested in how the Supreme Count of Israel classifies people, including terrorists, as civilians and distinguishs between different sets->legal obligations on the basis of whether they are or are not engaged in hostilities can go look at the many rulings on their site that deal with this issue in detail. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality plea

I'm only going to make a few edits - maybe even only one - because I hate getting involved in edit wars. I do hope, that WP:NPOV will prevail, and that no one will insist on presenting the POV of the flotilla organizers (and their legions of international supporters) as the only "true" one.

Rather, we should duck any conclusions and simply report what pro-flotilla and anti-flotilla sources have said:

1. that the flotilla's primary purpose was to bring in humanitarian aid
2. that its primary purpose was to break Israel's naval blockade against terrorists
3. that unarmed, peaceful aid workers were attacked for no good reason, in violation of international law
4. that the flotilla contained armed personnel who launched a violent surprise attack on troops enforcing a perfectly legal naval blockade

Rather than relying purely or mainly on journalistic sources sympathetic to Hamas (or hostile to Israel, which amounts to the same thing), can we try to find a balance between both viewpoints and simply describe every assertion in terms of A said B about C? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

we also don't need to rely on sources sympathetic to IDF and their international supporters (or hostile to palestinians and humanitarian activists).--Severino (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On point number 3 above, a news report stated that international law stipulates that a party can take action even before a vessel enters a blockaded area if the vessel is unwilling to change to a suggested course and the intention to enter the blockaded area is unquestioned. Therefore you can take action even miles before they enter, even if they're in international waters. The previous comment was taken from a news report condemning the raid, so i don't think is biased. I found this too... it might be biased or done with legalese in mind, but it might be useful. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some neutral conclusions:

1. It is not certain if the blockade is legal or not (if it was - this means the flotilla was not legal).
2. It is not certain if the raid was legal or not, since it was done in international waters.
3. It is not certain if the flotilla's humanitarian aid was in fact needed in Gaza (since humanitarian aid are shipped regularly to Gaza by land).
4. It is not certain if some of the flotilla participants attacked Israeli soldiers before any firearm was used.

ShalomOlam (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All the above comments sound useful. Thank you, Severino, Luis, and ShalomOlam. I guess I will make another couple of edits after all. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hostile to Israel DOES NOT MEAN SYMPATHETIC TO HAMAS - that's a flagrantly non-neutral attribution, coming directly from Hasbara sources (and probably from nobody else). 86.181.224.19 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I hope ShalomOlam was not trying to be deliberately deceptive. Also, conclusion 3 is ridiculous and one wonders how the author can claim that it is a neutral conclusion. Mshahidil (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

gaza flotilla takeover

would be a better name.

they used raid 'cause that's what the american media used. --212.54.207.223 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There were very detailed discussions and a vote regarding the name to be used for the article. Please check the previous archives. --386-DX (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even experts are wrong sometimes

The ship was not sailing under a Turkish flag so the following paragraph is irrelevant. It is uninformed speculation in a section that is already bloated. Easy enough mistake to make with the reporting not being completely clear but it looks like there was some misunderstanding:

"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law [182] Craig Murray explained that the raid was not an act of piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission, but said that it would be "an act of illegal warfare". According to Murray, the Law of the Sea rules that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred, so the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. If the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships, Israel would be in a position of war with Turkey, and the act would fall under international jurisdiction as a war crime. If, on the other hand, the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction and if Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.[183]"

Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, correct. The ship WASN'T Turkish-flagged, it was Comoros-flagged. Wouldn't this mean Comoros itself could be at war with Israel? Of course, the whole statement is wrong because the MV Mari Marmara wasn't Turkish-flagged, so shouldn't we get rid of it? Being irrelevant thanks to misinformation. Teafico (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I was thinking about trying to modify it based on the flagging but that ran int OR problems. When it comes down to it the section is bloated and it really is a legal opinion that doesn't improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick trip over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Rachel_Corrie told me that the people working on her article aren't even sure who's flag she's actually flying, as it appears to have been a quick change with little note. Funny how it can change the entire course of this event. I guess it's best if we let it sit for now. Teafico (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Different vessel and that was simply an editor who assumed and did not read the sources.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad, the MV Rachel Corrie just happened to be open in my browser and I copied over the wrong link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Mavi_Marmara It still appears they don't know. Comoros or Turkey. Teafico (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh easy mistake. They are having another discussion over there. Funny enough, they are relying on Free Gaza who I tend to not trust as RS. Also, the guy who had the legal opinion later made another one discussing the reflagging when he realized. He did say: "None of this masks the illegality of Israel attacking a ship under any foregin flag in international waters. But bluntly, it was a stupid decision in practice by the protestors to set sail in a Comoros flagged ship." That doesn't invalidate his previous opinion but it simply is more space to an opinion that is questionable at best. Maybe if tons of RS pick up on his opinion it will be important enough to include.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose we just sit and wait for new info to appear. It looks Comoros flagged, and I figure it is. Teafico (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But I don't get it: regardless of being Turkish-flagged or Comoros-flagged, the contribution of Murray is still useful, right? I mean, I don't see any other paragraph in the legal section addressing the same issue. It could be summarised and paraphrased in order to be included. --Samer.hc (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it carries more wait with Turkey being the flagged nation. I'm not sure Comoros would take any action. Hell, I hadn't even heard of Comoros until I learned this ship was flying her flag. Regardless, it can still be regarded as an "act of war" no matter the nation attacked, so I think we could summarize it. It's good info, the expert was just wrong because he was given misinformation. Granted, we still need the info. Teafico (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Many sources say the ship was Turkish-flagged. In any case I don't see how the flag is relevant to Murray's view that the attack was illegal. We can add a sentence after Murray's opinion to the effect that some reports have said the vessel was flying a Comoros flag. Turkey summoned Nato after the attack, so Turkey appears to be under the impression it was Turkish-flagged. --Dailycare (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Murray wrote a follow-up piece in which he addresses the problem of the flag. I recommend the previous passage to be reinstated with a note regarding the flag issue, as it's one of the most informative quotes about the legal implications of the attack. As Samer.hc notes, Murray's point is interesting not because of the nationality of the ship, but because of the two alternative legal options that he presents, which remain valid regardless of the flag of the ship. This is an issue that other commentators didn't bring up and that needs IMO to be reinstated. DarTar (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

I find the characterization "de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)" quite awkward. Can we not keep references to this territory NPOV? I think just "Northern Cyprus" should suffice. The reader can then follow the link to the article on Northern Cyprus and read more about it. There is no need for politically motivated name-dropping here. Letus (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a NPOV is appropriate for Cyprus as it relates to the Gaza flotilla raid. The only thing that makes sense to is have separate section within this article to cover, in extreme detail, the entire history of the Turkey/Greece Cyprus dispute going back to the time when the continents were joined and Cyprus was part of a larger landmass. We will also need all relevant opinions of the Cypriot dispute as voiced by the passengers of the flotilla and the people who read about the incident in their local newspapers. Additionally will probably need thousands of good RS as well as links to all relevant Onion articles that covered this topic. It will be a lot of work ... but absolutely worth the effort. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite cumbersome. One valid reason to have a more detailed reference here would be that "Northern Cyprus" is placed in direct contrast with "the government of Cyprus" in the sentence. A reader unaware of the situation, but puzzled why the ships could not sail from "Cyprus" but were able to leave from "Northern Cyprus" can follow the link as you say, but we can also save him some time reading the lead of that article with a small explanatory addition like "Turkish-controlled" (or something similar) in front of Northern Cyprus. Or maybe a rephrasal like "embarked instead from Famagusta, in the Turkish-Cypriot[s'] part of the island". In any case, simplicity prevails over detailed formalisms.--GroGaBa (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Northern Cyprus" with a link should suffice + definitely support campaign for The Onion to become an RS in Wikipedia. It's overdue and about as reliable as most op-eds by notable experts that are used in Wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that simplicity should prevail over detailed formalisms. Anyway, "Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus" sounds like a good alternative to my ears. Letus (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Too Long Rule of Thumb - What should we split?

According to the Wikipedia Too Long (Rule of Thumb) this article needs to be split up.

"A rule of thumb

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
≥ 40 KB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

The article is currently (110,761 bytes) so it seems the main question now is not whether to split it up, but rather what sections should be split off.

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it is readable prose which is much less than what the history page counts up. I agree that some things need to be trimmed but it is not yet technically a problem under the length standards but weight.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The legal speculation sections should be per vote above. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

ARGH. Damn sinebot. That section can be halved easily.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so this does not get archived: The article is a little long and has a weight tag. Any thoughts on how to fix it anyone?Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Planning of Raid

I think The Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance by Max Blumenthal, based on and translating parts of a pre-raid Ma'ariv article should be used in "Events leading up to the raid". Finding, using and translating the original Ma'ariv article should also help.John Z (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is there in the image. There is just one paragraph discussing the possibility of use of force, the one in the bottom-right corner headed "שלב 2: ההשתלטות" in red and black, based on a brief quote from an unnamed officer. Most of the article discusses the logistics of what Israel would do with the ships and passengers once they fell under Israeli control. The paragraph heads translate as follows: "Stage 1: warning," "Stage 2: takeover," "Stage 3: deportation," "Stage 4: custody," and "Stage 5: security check." If anything this article substantiates that the Israeli authorities expected the initial confrontation to go smoothly and to have mostly red tape to worry about after the ships were apprehended.  &#151;Rafi  04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like a bit might have been cut off. Blumenthal translates the title and caption as:

Title: Head to Head in the Heart of the Sea

Caption: On the way to violence; one of the boats is on its way.

"On the way to violence" does not sound like they were sure things would go smoothly. While Blumenthal may overemphasize some things, the Ma'ariv article does seem to indicate planning for violence: "If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force." His question, asked by many others, and which should be explored in the article: why were previously used more peaceful tactics - not boarding - not used this time, underlines this. His opinion is that the plan chosen "made the killing of activists likely, if not inevitable."John Z (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're exactly right; that title and caption are cut off. Ma'ariv is a yellow tabloid, so I'd bet money there is a splashy photograph of a flotilla ship on the facing page (notice the article is inset on a photograph of water) with a dramatic title and caption. "On the way to violence" is a possible translation of "בדרך לעימות", which connotes confrontation in general and not necessarily violence. It's pretty clear that Blumenthal cherry-picked what he wanted to fit his conclusion. I'd criticize in more detail but the bottom line is that Blumenthal's opinion doesn't meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT.

The reason the Marmara was the only ship boarded is that it was the only ship that refused to change course.  &#151;Rafi  16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Change in the lead: Supplies withheld by Israel

On the article's lead it reads:

"The vast majority of the cargo (8000 of the 10,000 tons) is thought to have been withheld by Israeli authorities and not offered Gaza."

This is technically not true as most (all?) of the withehld items were building materials like cement which are far heavier than other items like food or medicine. In truth, the flottila could be filled with medicine and rubber toys, while having a few cement parcels lying around, and the weight would still mark cement as "the majority". Thus the withheld items could actually be a small minority of the full cargo - a very heavy minority - while this line can be interpreted as if israeli authorities withheld most of the cargo, which may very well be false, unless some source states that building materials did in fact make up for the majority of the parcels. As such, I suggest a re-phrase to keep un-aware readers from getting wrong information.

I have previously requested that the user who made this edit remove it and given my reasoning as follows:

Your recent edits to the lead are a good example of WP:Synth Check this link you provided in regards to 4/5 of the aid not being delivered. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/hamas-flotilla-aid-israel

The article only says "The flotilla was thought to be carrying about 8,000 tons of cement and other materials which have been barred by Israel since it tightened its blockade on the Gaza Strip three years ago."

Your edit asserting that the vast majority of cargo will not be delivered is clearly WP:Synth.

Please reverse this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365944150&oldid=365943554

Zuchinni one (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

SHip cargo is measured by its weight. So its still a fair assessment. You could say something like 'the majority of the gross weight of the cargo' but I still think its acceptable how it is. ValenShephard 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

It is obvious that "vast majority" means "by weight" if 8,000 out of 10,000 tons is said next. Any other interpretation is absurd.John Z (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

While that is true, considering how diverse the cargo transported by the flotilla is, I believe the wording should be changed so that the distinction between the withheld weight and the withheld parcels can be easily made by the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.134.239 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, getting in building materials (and other banned materials) was the point of the flotilla, because they were aware most of the other items could come in legally, they wouldnt have bothered otherwise (not taking into account the publicity question). From their own view, the cement and building materals are the most important cargo, even if they werent the largest weight or some such. So if you are talking about the relatice importance of each cargo, this needs to be taken into account. ValenShephard 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Valen, I think you're missing the point. Currently there is no information about how much of what existed in the cargo except for conjecture. So whose conjecture was it? What was their reasoning for it? Are they are reliable source? Unless we have facts, not guesses, this should be removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats why it says thought to and another similar term which someone added. Its not conjecture, it is what a major newspaper has unearthed, their evidence and the facts they have available point to it being cement and building materials. Thats why they said thought to and we said thought to. Why dont you suggest other wording? If its acceptable to both, i'll happily change it. Also note the support I got a few comments above. ValenShephard 03:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, even if this is confirmed ... which is certainly possible, it would be more appropriate to leave it in the "Fate of Cargo" section Zuchinni one (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is critical information to get a better view of the incident. I dont think its an issue, its not controversial at all. ValenShephard 03:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I think it should be in the heading, as a purpose of the flotilla (one way or another) was to deliver cargo, yeah? Teafico (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Valen ... please see this ref in the "fate of cargo" section where Israel claims that NONE of the cargo was banned and has allowed all of it in. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177165 The bottom line is that this is unclear. I am going to remove it from the lead. However I think it is reasonable for you to give both perspectives on the fate of the cargo in the "Fate of the Cargo" section. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On that Jpost article, near the bottom, reads: "The illegal construction materials were removed from the ships and will be held by us awaiting further instructions.”". The cargo is being held, then, isn't it? Teafico (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Guardian source, while the origina anon verbal objection is based on an absurd reading of the text, the Guardian does not seem to support the text sufficiently. I believe most of the cement is on the freighter Rachel Corrie, still under way.John Z (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following, if I may:

"A total of 8.000 tons of supplies (out of the 10,000 total) are thought to have been witheld by Israeli authorities and not offered to Gaza, the majority of those being cement and other building materials."

I believe that this makes it clearer for the reader, but that's obviously my opinion. Please excuse any grammar errors, typos.--85.139.134.239 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please limit changes in the article regarding this topic to the "Fate of the Cargo" section until there is clear evidence of exactly what is going on. The Lead is not a good place to put disputed facts. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like the new lead, it's open to interpretation. We'll find out the facts later and maybe re-add them to the lead. Teafico (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or not, someone reverted it back. I'll have to look at the history and see, but I liked the statement that included "not delivering all aid and freeing the activists/passengers." Teafico (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor that added that statement about the cargo and its tonnage. Can we please defend it against being deleted, because its been compromised heavily since I originally put it there, and its properly sources.--ValenShephard 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I was probably one of the people that edited it, I know I added something about WHY the cargo was being held, "8/10 tons presumably being construction materials" or something. But that was before I even found this debate going on in the talk page. Teafico (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If and when the facts of the aid delivery cease to be in dispute this MIGHT be OK to put in the Lead. Currently there are at least 2 RS that offer completely different stories.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/hamas-flotilla-aid-israel
• http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177165

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It still reads, uhm:

"“We are currently liaising with the Palestinian Authority so that they will receive the approved equipment according to the agreed upon procedures,” said Gofer. “The illegal construction materials were removed from the ships and will be held by us awaiting further instructions.”

It states they are holding items, BUT, I see your point. They are not saying how much of that cargo is illegal construction. Noted. Teafico (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Two errors. The first source doesnt say anything about all the aid being delivered, it talks about truckloads of aid and soon after claims that around 8000 tons has been withheld. The second source says 'the majority of aid was loaded onto trucks' this means that trucks were mostly used, not that most of the aid physically was put on trucks. And what is classed as 'aid' in this source is what has been checked and approved by Israel, which is not all the aid, much of it as stated in the other source has not been allowed by authorities--ValenShephard 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally the Jpost article said "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi."

But now there has been more information added to the article "According to Levi, the soldiers also found construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods. He said that Israel did not allow those products to enter into the Gaza strip for fear that they would be used to construct fortifications for terrorists and for weapons manufacture."

So there is now agreement that SOME aid will not be delivered. However the amounts are still in question. The 8,000 Tons is an guess by The Guardian with no reasoning behind it. That does not mean it is wrong, but does mean it is not WP:V.

There is a good chance that things will become clear in the future. Until then all of this should stay in the "Fate of the Cargo" section.

The concern here is keeping the lead factual and concise as per WP:Lead. Bottom line.

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just remove the 8,000. We know they're holding construction materials, but we don't know the amount. Stating the construction hold would be good enough, I'd say. Teafico (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In replay to that article which says "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi.". This person is talking about equipment, not building materials or cement which do not fit under that catagory. He is talking about the medical equipment, wheelchairs etc. Not construction material.ValenShephard 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Vast majority"

A statement to the effect that the "vast majority" of the material were construction materials. This is presumably based on the information that 8,000 tons were construction materials. This is synthesis, however, as it is based on the assumption that weight would be the relevant unit of measurement. Counting by value, however, the results would very likely be different. The information therefore needs to be removed from the text.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Like previously stated, ship cargo (or any cargo) is measured by weight. Simple as that, that is not disputed.ValenShephard 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... Yes, it is[3]. While measuring the cargo of a ship carrying only one type of goods makes sense ("3 tonnes of apples and oranges" is fairly unambiguous), the same measurement for a ship carrying a mix of goods as in this case is quite useless ("10 tonnes of apples and lead weights" doesn't tell us how much of the cargo is actually edible). 82.102.159.23 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues with edit-warring (user: ValenShephard)

Per the recent edit history and above, User ValenShephard has made multiple efforts to add in the same non-lead material (also failing to understand the concept of summaries, that "solid sources" are not gospel, and on multiple occasions failing to read the text before editing, plus making snarky edit history comments), deliberately removing important article context, failed to understand NPOV does not mean removing anything that they think is POV when those are actually sourced accounts from various bodies/individuals within clearly delineated sections of the article, etc. Any input appreciated, please. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of those issues have been resolved. Misunderstanding the text, missing something, or making an admitted mistake, is not a crime and is not enough to single me out.--ValenShephard 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually those issues have NOT been resolved as per this: User_talk:ValenShephard, and this: User_talk:Zuchinni_one#Flotilla, and this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Change_in_the_lead:_Supplies_withheld_by_Israel

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not a "crime", ValenShephard, but you are continuing to make these mistakes, failing to address issues raised and continuing to edit-war.

Other behaviors such as "sneak edits" to the article lead (e.g. adding the word "possibly" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=365959705&oldid=365959476 when that is not in the main body text) as part of a larger edit with long narrative that says nothing about that "addition" are very definitely /not/ appreciated by this editor or WP as a whole, I suspect. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to ask for clarification on what the 1rr entails? Also, comments are signed by typing 4 tildes (~~~~).Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont think my personal mistakes, mostly caused by inexperience, should be used against me here. What does it accomplish, except an attempt to discredit my current (not the ones we disputed and largely removed) edits? What is sneaky about it? I wrote exactly what word I had added, where and why. Is that a wikipedia policy or you just made it up?--ValenShephard 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

This is probably not the best article on WP to be editing in a somewhat aggressive manner if you feel yourself to be "inexperienced". Please could you take the time to read up on WP policies and best practice. I do not believe I for one am trying to "discredit you" by stating facts and failure to try to adhere to WP standards since "good faith" must be assumed. Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The "possibly" (edit of ValenShephard's) is a big concern. It is verified. There is footage of it. The "according to" + "supposedly" edit also was a little off. You need to stop adding inappropriate modifiers. Make sure to double check the sources and not assume or let to much personal feelings come into it. And sign your comments. Again. Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately for me, your suggestions are only that.--ValenShephard 04:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify to whom this is directed and what "suggestions" you are meaning. Thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- How about you both sort it out on the talk page before someone posts an edit warring request against you both or an admin spots the warring in an article covered by 1RR and the discretionary sanctions and carries out an air strike ? It takes 2 to edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or for one user to make changes three times to single edits from three other users, which would be closer to the case overall, here. At present, we cannot edit further at least one area of contention as the user in question has reverted that text in at least three times, IIRC, even /after/ they realised their misinterpretation. Harami2000 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that one user is right and the other 3 are wrong. It doesn't matter. People shouldn't edit war. It isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sean: Which is why I raised this on talk rather than seeing that continue... The matter has not been resolved despite ValenShephard's statement "seeing as I have accepted my errors and not argued over the reverts and changes to my edits which the editors" below as that does not reflect either the reality or an understanding/willingness to read up on WP. Harami2000 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have. Well done. :) So, either editors stop edit warring, engage in discussion here and resolve the content issues or they get reported at WP:ANEW. There's no justification for edit warring about content. It will just get the article locked. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was just coming to say that its not appropriate to go over my behaviour here, especially seeing as I have accepted my errors and not argued over the reverts and changes to my edits which the editors are talking aboutValenShephard 05:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

The sign button must not be working. Please type in the tildes.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Having said all that I would quite like to see automatic reverting of edits like this by sock-like accounts with almost no edits that do things like pick lower values in a range. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that edit was actually picking a lower value ... it looked like it was simply saying 8000 instead of "8000 out of 10,000". Having said that ... there is still no way to confirm the 8000 since it is merely what the article writer "thought" and it should be kept out of the lead until verified. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just remove the 8,000. We know they're holding construction materials, but we don't know the amount. Stating the construction-materials hold would be good enough, I'd think. Teafico (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, I didn't notice that, oops. Still, the shoot first, ask questions later, assume bad faith approach works well for me.. :) But yes, I don't think we need details in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Supreme Court Decision

The article currently reads:

The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal: "In light of Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, Israel has take various steps meant to prevent direct access to the Gaza Strip, including the imposition of a naval blockade on the Strip, which, according to the State's declaration, is meant to block the infiltration of weapons and ammunition into Hamas ranks which have carried out shooting and terrorist attacks in Israeli territory for years with the goal of harming civilians."

I believe this is incorrect. I have just read the Court's full judgment in Hebrew, available here[4]. The numerous petitioners (Al-Jazeera, Adallah, and others) sought a writ of Habeus Corpus. This was the issue which the court primarily dealt with, and the petitions were rejected. However, on page 5, at Paragraph 6, the court writes:

יצוין כי בשל אופיו של ההליך שקיימנו, ביקשנו שלא לעסוק כלל בטענות

הנוגעות לחוקיות הסגר הימי ואף לא בהתרחשות העובדתית באותו אירוע קשה, אשר

מלוא פרטיו לא נפרשו בפנינו.

Translation: "It should be stated that due to the nature of the proceeding we have conducted [pertaining to Habeus Corpus], we have not dealt at all with arguments pertaining to the legality of the naval blockade or the factual occurrences [which took place] at that difficult event [the boarding], and the full details [of the event] were not set out before us."

I would like some other Hebrew speakers to confirm my understanding of the judgment, and then, if you agree, to remove the incorrect information from the article. --Sstr (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The judgment has nothing to do with the question if the blockade was legal or not, if the flotilla was legal or not, or if the raid was legal or not. The rulling was about Israel's Aattorney General's decision to release some of the detainees and deport them, rather than press charges. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I am making. The Wikipedia page says: "The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal." This is false. The court did not rule on the legality of the blockade or the raid, and said so explicitly. Consequently, I suggest we remove the incorrect information from the article. --Sstr (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed that and replaced it with what the source actually said. Is it back ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah my per source edit survived for once. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

missing per.

I cant find the section (about planing) what was here just a little time ago. Posted by John at 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ai 00 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Check the archives, I might have archived it too early. If that is the case, feel free to unarchive it, but remember to delete it from the archive. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

"get past" vs. "break"

The lead section has been changed to say that the flotilla was trying to "get past" the blockade, when it previously said "break".

And the description from Free Gaza themselves very clearly say that that their intent is to "... break the siege of Gaza"

Was there any good reason for this change? Or was it just changed to make the flotilla sound more innocuous

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

At one point it said "go through". I changed it to "get past" with the thinking that you "go through a door" and "get past a bouncer". But I think break would be OK as well and that is often the terminology used when people try to bypass a blockade. I'll leave it up to you and the other editors though to make a decision :) Zuchinni one (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the terminology, to charge a blockade? I note that the San Remo Manual 1994, as quoted by Mark Regev, uses "breaching a blockade" 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

The terminology to use is the one that is in the majority/plurality of RS I guess...don't know what that is but 'break' seems likely from what I've read. Or we could just go by whatever the press office of Israel's PM says about everything and save having to search for RS. :) Not sure the word matters much. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza". Since they used the term "break" - I think it's okay to use it here as well. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed Peck article link

{{editsemiprotected}}

Minor edit request. But since there is an article, there should be a link to him, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! SpigotMap 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie updates

Seem like the boat will not make its way to Gaza soon because of the lack of accompanying reporters [5]. --Gilisa (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I read earlier today that it was confirmed that the ship was waiting for additional video equipment to stream it all live. Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

According to El País this morning, the base in Cyprus has lost radio contact with the Rachel Corrie. [6] Physchim62 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Politics of the aid, youtube link in the lead

I wish to change the sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza" in the first paragraph to "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast. ". The reasons are

• One of the two references given for the above statement is a youtube link; this is a primary source, an IDF video, certainly not suited here. The second source talks just about the Israeli offer to unload cargo in Ashdod, not Flotilla's rejection or why it was rejected.
• The Israeli offer and flotilla's rejection is given elsewhere in the article; here we are describing what happened on 31 May 2010 and not its history.
• There is no need to go through the cycle of bringing in Israeli offer, its rejection, then why it was rejected, etc which will stretch things to mentioning even cement ( banned material) in the lead.
• There is no multiple mainstream, neutral media coverage to an Israeli offer in the seas and flotilla's rejection there which lead to the raid. This is part of the background. If there is only this single sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza", then it is not a neutral statement as it does not mention why it was rejected. This can be mentioned, with all details, in the back ground section. The sentence I propose is factual, referenced and neutral. Walky-talky (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support this. Israeli commandos raided the ships and that's the event that we are dealing with in this article. The current wording advances one narrative by suggesting the reason for the raid was the GFF's refusal to do something. If we include a reason/excuse for every action we risk creating a textual infinity mirror. RomaC (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about your proposal.

1. The youtube link in this case is actual footage of the event so it may be valid. I tried to find out what the Wikipedia standards were for youtube videos, but I was unsuccessful ... anyone knowledgeable want to comment?
2. There was definitely an offer made to deliver the aid and a refusal shortly before the clash
3. I agree that this lead is a bit full of issues like cement, which though it may be relevant in the larger context ... seems like overkill for the lead.
4. There are many mainstream sources about the multiple offers. In fact most of the early articles about the clash mentioned them. Perhaps they have been lost in the numerous edit-wars, but they do exist.

All that being said I fully support keeping the lead as concise as possible. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article includes the full transcript of the radio transmissions, you can read for yourself. Israel Navy: "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostilities which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area coastal region and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of the supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports aboard the vessels on which you arrived." Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The youtube link ( even the radio transmissions) are primary sources. Our guideline is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. ". Not only is it primary, it is not a neutral source and no one has verified its authenticity. It is not our job to verify its authenticity; if it is a significant event, it will be covered in reliable secondary sources and then we can mention it with due weight. Added to this are the problems that will arise out of giving only the offer of Israel and not what its response was (on the seas) or why.Walky-talky (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WW is right. Wiki policies are clear on this, Zuchinni and Marokwitz, please read WP:PRIMARY regarding why IDF YouTube videos are not valid sources. RomaC (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the youtube link should be used as a source. There is a wide variety of secondary sources for this, for example (there are hundreds others): [7] 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So I read through Wikipedia:PRIMARY and my impression is that a primary source is not allowed if it is not verified by others secondary RS. In this case, the youtube video HAS been verified and reported in many RS. So it would be OK to include it, but we should also include refs to good RS secondary sources that verify it. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. The primary source issue can be fixed as reliable secondary sources have reported on the Israeli offer. But again, I say we are following the Israeli narrative by including this in the lead. GFF said they would try to break the blockade and deliver aid, then Israel enforced the blockade with commandos boarding. That's the facts. The addition of Israeli saying "don't try to break the Gaza blockade, come to Israel instead" serves only to advance an Israeli narrative on the event and does not belong in the lead. If it does, then the Israeli offer to distrubute the aid should also be qualified with the fact that they didn't. Why? Hamas refused. Why? Israel offered a tiny fraction, including electric wheelchairs with batteries removed. Why? Hamas might use the batteries to play music all night keeping Sderot awake... etc. Lead has to be concise no reasons/excuses just what happened. 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of context quote shows bias

The Norweign expert, Palle Ydstebø, views have been taken out of context in what seems to be a biased fashion.

In the "weapons section" the focus is on how this expert says there is no "military" equipment, and "normal items".

But if you actually read the article, you get a _very_ different impression. In the referenced article, he also says this:

"... the large number of ax and hammer handles. Such solid wooden handles is very good as a battlefield weapon… When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight. .. if several attacks a soldier with a knife and gun battles, they can both harm and ultimately kill him."

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fmidtosten%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10008056&sl=no&tl=en

To keep any semblance of fairness and balance here, his expert opinion needs to be put in it's full context also giving his views on possible premeditation of violence, and the pictures showing "very good battlefield weapons".

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you will find axes on pretty much any decently sized boat – as safety equipment. Physchim62 (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I find these speculations about intent and possible usage of objects a bit silly personally. I'm expecting to see something about how a Palestinian keffiyeh (like the one in the IDF photo) could be used to muffle someone's cries for help and thus assist terrorism at some point. It seems to me that there is a inverse relationship between the amount of opinion in an article and it's quality. Britannica doesn't write articles this way. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case it's an expert opinion which is being quoted. And half of his opinions (those making the passengers look harmless) have been included, and half of his opinions (speaking of passengers as possessing dangerous battlefield weapons, and possibly premeditating violence) have been left out. How is that not blatant bias? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's discussion above about it at Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_6#Norwegian_military_expert, which pretty much came to agreement after some translation difficulties; I wanted to get what we said right first and was expecting ReneJohnsen to do the edit. I agree we should try to keep things concise and avoid excessive opinionation (outside of the legalities).John Z (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem like blatant bias. Leaving things out selectively is tiresome behavior. The information that strikes me as important to include for balance is something about his comment "When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight". I still find it a bit hard to see why we should particularly care about senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø speculations about what it might suggest to have a set of people + a set of objects together in a space. Obviously people aren't harmless and will use whatever is available, not just 'military equipment', to defend themselves whether they're soldiers or people facing soldiers when they feel under attack. Still, if the consensus is to participate in this he said/she said narrative war then the least we can do is not introduce bias ourselves by misrepresenting sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All the information in full is the best way to prevent bias, as Sean said. About what Sean wrote "Obviously people aren't harmless and will use whatever is available, not just 'military equipment', to defend themselves", i have an opinion: they don't need to defend themselves in the first place if they are not expecting to be attacked. What i understand is that it was made to call for attention and leave Israel in a bad standing point. I saw one of the "activists" state that this is his second time trying to become a martyr and that he hopes the third time he can become one, so i don't think his primary objective was to aid Gaza, but to die. I don't see how having marbles and slingshots is going to help the people in Gaza. As i just said, it's just my opinion based on what i've seen and read. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sean I agree with you on two things. "Leaving things out selectively is tiresome behavior." Happens here and there on Wikipedia but this source looked like it was introduced several hours ago to say "hey look I found this source that said they weren't weapons!" There was a whole discussion on how to fix it. And it got fixed kind of. The second (and more relevant) point I agree with is "I still find it a bit hard to see why we should particularly care about senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø speculations about what it might suggest to have a set of people + a set of objects together in a space." I say axe the whole paragraph. It isn't needed. No offense to the guy but his opinion means very little in the grand scheme of things. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

...well yes, also, getting onboard a ship that doesn't have respirators as part of it's fire safety equipment is dumb. speculation sucks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So how do people feel about removing the whole paragraph? I know people worked on it and it is a shame to ditch RS but it has too much weight and just is not important enough of an observation to be included.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, lose it all, balance it or maybe cut it back to 'A senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø stated after watching the released pictures that "This is not military equipment"'. The whole narrative war strikes me as bordering on the ridiculous so I probably shouldn't comment... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the IDF version of events, the activists version of events. So, it seems to me that _if_ this guy provides an _expert and non-biased analysis_ then his opinions are both relevant and important to the discussion of "weapons investigation".

Can I propose this:

"A senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø said that the pictures show no military weapons and many common items found on any boat, but that some of the items are effective battlefield weapons, including types of weapons used in the intifada, and indicate that some activists may have premeditated violence".

Does that accurately and fairly characterize his views? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It has both points, so it sounds fair. No military weapons but still battlefield weapons. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry why this photo and a random Norwegian? Is there a question that maybe it was the GFF who raided the Israeli military vessels and air support, that they were trying to climb up those ropes? Otherwise what's the point? Most people have got stuff in their sheds that would make this IDF alleged "weapons photo" look tame -- not even a flare gun! I'd venture that most, say, hotels in the USA or Turkey or Israel have better, for example firearms on premises. I smell a blame the victims tendency here. RomaC (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, if you take a shovel out of your shed and beat your neighbor to death with it, it is a "weapon." That's why the picture is relevant. As for the Norweign, he seems to provide a good NPOV expert analysis of what's shown in the picture. It would be better if we had someone equally unbiased in English, but we don't.

We had one vote that said my earlier text seemed balanced and fair. Anyone disagree? If not, I'll go and make the change. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish involvement, mercenaries, bin laden connection

1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure how this could be included in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By finding coverage of these stories in multiple international RS first ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jpost is a reliable source. I don't know what an "international R.S" is. Those links provide explicit and important data that could improve the article on a factual-level. Turkish jihadist charity hosted flotilla "aid" ship. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence showing this ship was far from a humanitarian vessel, based on its crew, its cargo, and testimony from the Turkish commander and audio-video footage. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is but including material like this simply on the basis that it appears in an Israeli or a Palestinian RS is not a smart way to proceed. If it is notable, verifiable and worth our attention it will appear in a whole spectrum of RS outside of the area of conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What Palestinian RS are there? Israeli media is perfectly reliable and not someway different from non-Israeli media. We aren't discriminating against Al Jazeera even though its journalists already had a biased presence from the very start of raid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ma'an is a Palestinian RS in my view but I guess you would dispute that and it's not pertinent in this case. 'discriminating against'...drama. Israeli media are not perfectly reliable and they are different from non-Israeli media. You can replace the word 'Israeli' in that sentence with any other nationality you like and it will still be true. My simple point, which I think you already understand perfectly well and are just being difficult, is that if something is notable, verifiable and worth our attention it will appear in a whole spectrum of RS not just the Israeli press. Overreliance on Israeli media (and I'm a fan of some of it) or including something contentious that only appears in the Israeli media and isn't picked up internationally is a bad idea for this article. We should be using a spectrum of RS available out there to avoid introducing systemic bias and due weight/NPOV compliance issues. It shouldn't be a problem to find all sorts of sources if something is notable and merits inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And since the subject has come up, I'll say something else. What I strongly object to and regard as willful non-compliance with NPOV obligations by partisan editors is when editors make edits like this introducing contentious material cited to a single partisan source without any attempt whatsoever to look for a response for balance or other sources. This is not helpful. It's like expecting someone to wash up your dirty plates for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a dubious comparison. Jpost has relationships with WSJ and cooperates with AP. Media rights in Palestinian-controlled areas are extremely limited and journalist freelancers are routinely intimidated. There is no difference between Israeli media and non-Israeli media. Jpost is just as reliable as BBC, if not more - as BBC is woefully dependent on anonymous freelancers, whereas Jpost provides far more in-depth and up to date stories. BBC has yet to break the news about the jihadist link and turkish government involvement. There is no systematic bias here, just an individual editor saying certain information should be excluded because it comes from an Israeli paper...but news coming from Europe, a continent with an historical bias against Jews..is honky dory. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably a conflict of interest what with me being a nazi or something and hating people like Bar Refaeli. :) "There is no difference between Israeli media and non-Israeli media."..."a continent with an historical bias against Jews", sigh, I'm not having this conversation, although I'll try to dig out a very nice Israeli study I remember that used deterministic methods to generate metrics for linguistic bias in the Israeli media for you when I get a chance sometime. I'm not saying that it should be excluded. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a problem to find all sorts of sources if it's notable and merits inclusion and it would be better to take that approach. If you add the material I won't be the one that reverts you. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sean, this isn't about you. Jpost, Haaretz, etc...are all reliable sources and are frequently cited in israel-related articles. They are not somehow inferior to larger and more mainstream presses like BBC or the NYT. I said nothing about Nazis or Bar Refaeli. If BBC refuses to report this it doesn't somehow negate what jpost links say. We all know how politicized the media is when it comes to the A/I conflict. Like I said before, I don't know how this information would be placed into the article. I rather we achieve some sort of agreement and consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452

• Jpost is an RS but clearly the contents of the article are in dispute. I would suggest that for now it go into the Israel Accounts section. If more information comes out later and it is confirmed by many more RS then perhaps it might be OK to put it elsewhere Zuchinni one (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize legality section

I believe the legality section should not be in pro/contra sections, but in sections by legal issue. As I see it, there are three issues, the second one in two parts: the legality of the blockade; the legality of boarding ships in international waters presuming the blockade itself is legal or presuming it is illegal; and the proportionality of the force used. Each of these 2 large sections and 2 subsections would have pro and contra arguments. This would lead to less repetition than the current structure, which is organized by source, and thus states many arguments redundantly. Homunq (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How about:

• Innocent passage and international waters
• Naval blockades
• Proportionality

It is not for Wikipedia to "decide" either way if the attack was legal, but to give readers information about the three legal concepts, and how they have been "applied" (by commentators) to this situation. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that mixing the arguments is a good idea in principle, but would likely result in a difficult editing process. I'd suggest to tackle this at some point in the future. The section could be converted into a sub-article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good in general. I believe you'd need a separate subsection of "blockades" for "blockades and humanitarian aid". Homunq (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Info about the legality of the blockade belongs in Gaza_blockade#Legal_arguments. This article isn't about that or at least it shouldn't be. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the legal status of the blockade is relevant here. For instance, some experts could express the view that the blockade is legal in itself, but not enforceable in international waters. That opinion would be relevant to this article, more than to the Gaza blockade article. Moreover, the proposed change is not to include this information, since it's already on the page; it's just to reorganize it in a more coherent and less repetitive fashion. Homunq (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say to write something in WP:SUMMARY-style, because everyone is talking at cross purposes for the moment. All three points are relevant, even if any given editor or commentator wishes to find one more important than the others. Physchim62 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be updated or removed

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [193]

see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898429,00.html The petition is not particularly relevant, without a disclosed legal basis accepted by the high court. I suggest removing this mention or update with the high courts decision. AFarber (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In Gaza_flotilla_raid#Israeli_judicial_decisions I believe it notes their petition was denied, but I am not particularly familiar with the case or the source cited. If you could provide a specific quote that would help. Thanks,--Nosfartu (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the link above as follows should suffice: The petition was formally revoked by the petitioners after the initial response of the court.

Justice Beinish responded to the petition: "It is clear that the suit was filed in haste. Even though the petitioners knew nothing of what had occurred, they did not hesitate to hurriedly place the gravest possible stain on the IDF forces' actions while using sharp and abrasive language that was out of place..." I strongly suggest removing the passage since there was no petition in the end and the passage does not contribute factually and is not NPOV. At least Justice Beinish didn't think so AFarber (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Boarding

The facts are unnecessarily vague. I suggest including personal accounts of Al-Jazeera cameraman for example,

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6521UG.htm

and account of Israeli soldier who claims to have killed six of the pro-Palestinian activists:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445

The independent accounts presumably from different political perspectives appear to corroborate each other. AFarber (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support more detail on the violence while boarding per AFarber - the facts do seem to be becoming clearer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I support adding details from these personal accounts, as long as it is not done by one of the editors with serious POV problems, selectively quoting to push their own viewpoint (as has been done dozens of times in this article). Marokwitz (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Check these please: [8] and [9] . --Lapost (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Al-Jazeera interview with Jamal Elshayyal includes the statement that the Israelis were firing live ammunition down from the helicopter prior to the boarding and that he knew this because one person was shot through the top of the head. Seems like this would also have made it into the final edit of this paragraph. http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.217.86 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

video material during the raid to greek Sefdoni ship

Today a video from the raid in the Greek ship Sfndoni has been published by http://tvxs.gr/node/59618 (tvxs.gr). In the video you can hear the first minutes of the raid and the discussions between the activists and the Israeli soldiers. You can hear gunshots etc, some part of the video conversation is in English language. This is a rare documentary because all the recorded material, photos, videos has been stolen by the Israeli army during the raid. Ggia (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing story

I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against WP:SYNTH, but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010

Perhaps I didn't make my recommendation clear. I'm proposing we add a section about how one (or both?) side has repeatedly changed their story. We've seen this even as this article has evolved. This isn't a "forum" or "soapbox" issue - this is an article improvement issue. Specifically, I'm suggesting one or more editors look for reliable sources that point out the obvious (rather than rely on our own syntheses) - as it relates directly to the aftermath and world reaction. Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UT

I don't know if there are any sources actually saying that. It looks to me that people made assumptions and Free Gaza sent out info to the press without knowing the story. Now that more people are talking and there is more footage it has changed from a complete victimization to some self defense. Hopefully a source says that but I haven't seen one yet. Until then our hands are tied and we need to use some common sense to cut sources that are contradicted by numerous others.Cptnono (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

cover up, fake idf video

israel's footage of soldiers being attacked takes place during the day though it was widely accepted to happen at night time. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What footage are you talking about? All of the footage on that page takes place in the dark, with the exception of the post-action footage that is taken in daylight. Since the raid happened in the early hours of the morning (this is not "widely accepted" but an undisputed fact) this makes perfect sense. 82.102.159.23 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF footage was taken with a night-vision camera. gee, you remind me of the folks claiming the moon landing was fake because the flag was waving in the "wind"

thats not night vision its basically the same footage of the US soldiers shooting Iraqi journalists from helicopter incident. And its obviously fake, just look at how everyones goofball fighting like they were in the 3 stooges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

??? Are we really discussing this  ??? Is anybody here an expert in determining the authenticity of these videos by watching a few seconds of them on youtube? WP:OR is not going to be included in the article anyway. How about getting some RS that support your claim. Until then this is just a waste of time. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restart activist etc terminology discussion

I noticed that an IDF primary source here says "attacked by Mavi Marmara passengers" and "9 flotilla participants were killed" (my bolding). When an IDF article uses more neutral/generic terminology than a Wikipedia article it might suggest that we have a slight problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's about time someone else notices that this article is not neutral... ShalomOlam (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that some people might *GASP* putting bias into the article .... NOOOO!!! The only thing that I can think of to resolve this situation is to get the biased editors to resolve their dispute here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hQC3nkftrk#t=1m29s Zuchinni one (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have used the word activists for those involved in fighting, including AP, Reuters, BBC, NYT, and so on. You can Google it, but I won't embarrass myself again by providing a link. :) Send me to the Thunderdome! :)  &#151;Rafi  20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And including Aljazeera and JPost.  &#151;Rafi  20:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF name for the operation for the lead

Could someone please confirm whether the IDF name for the operation was מבצע רוחות שמיים and provide a sensible translation, sky spirits, sky ghosts, sky something or even better has anyone found an English RS with the IDF's name for the operation in it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it means Operation Sea Breeze - I'll check the archives. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Rename_or_move#Rename_to_Operation_Sea_Breeze & Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#A_brutal_ambush_at_sea suggest this. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct translation is: Sky winds. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

מבצע רוחות שמיים was the popular name on the Hebrew wikipedia. The IDF calls it Operation Sea Breeze here while the New York Daily News also did so.

Disclosure:No Hebrew experience--Nosfartu (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the correct translation is: Sky winds. There is no hebrew word for "Breeze". And obviously, "sea" and "sky" are two different things. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Except בריזה, you mean? But yes, the correct translation is in fact Sky Winds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.159.23 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, בריזה is not a hebrew word. It is true that people may use it in a hebrew conversation, like they use other non-hebrew words such as "telephone", but that does not make it a hebrew word. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- That's great, thanks, lots of links to sources too via the google link in the discussion. Someone should add it. I have to sign out. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IDF name for the operation was "מבצע רוחות שמיים 7". So the most sensible translation is "Operation Sky winds 7". ShalomOlam (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

flotilla convoy

Stating that the convoy was a "humanitarian aid flotilla" is POV and flotilla's side propaganda, mainly for the following reasons:

• Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza".

• There are no RS who claim that the flotilla's humanitarian aid was in fact needed in Gaza - since humanitarian aid are shipped regularly to Gaza by land.

• There are RS that says Gaza refused to receive the cargo, after Israel released it.

ShalomOlam (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ShalomOlam, you are quite misinformed about your second point. There are a very large number of RS that say far more (~4x) humanitarian aid is needed than is being allowed through by Israel and have done for years. It's not regular and it never has been. There's something like 60-70% food insecurity, an important metric e.g. ICRC [10], [11]. UN [12], all sorts of sources. Anyway, signing out... Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel has contact flotilla officials, and other diplomats across the world, saying that it will allow the convoy's cargo to be delivered to Gaza via land, after they will download it in Port of Ashdod and examine it. This means that there was no humanitarian need for the cargo to reach Gaza by sea, since this could have been done by land. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or it means that the activists felt that Israel wouldn't have allowed some of the aid into Gaza (such as cement, which the activists cited as a need of the people of Gaza, but which Israel does not allow to cross the borders). It's all a matter of perspective. ← George ^talk 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your personal views and original research about why the convoy was not an aid convoy aren't helpful. Hundreds of reliable sources referred to it as an aid convoy, and, therefore, so should we. We could cite a dozen references after the term "aid convoy" in the article, but that would be little more than trying to prove a point. ← George ^talk 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not express personal views. Please read what I wrote more carfully. Thanks. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the three points you listed that would make a convoy that reliable sources describe as an "aid convoy" not be an aid convoy. Let's review. Your first point is that the flotilla claimed to be an aid convoy opposed to the blockade. Your second point is that you don't think the aid was needed, or you just failed to do any research on the issue, as many reliable sources - i.e., the United Nations - have claimed that aid is needed. Your third point is purely original research. If a starving man refuses to eat pork for religious reasons, then he's not starving? Hardly. ← George ^talk 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read accounts on both sides of the "aid convoy" issue and would like to suggest the following analysis:

1. Humanitarian supplies are desperately needed in Gaza, and there is no other way to get in such large amounts of aid other than boat.
2. Humanitarian supplies are desperately needed in Gaza, and nearly a quarter million tons has come in by land.

So the dispute would seem to be over the decision to bypass land routing: is it because that's the only way "aid" can get in (as land routes are also being blocked), or is it something else?

If Israeli sources like CAMERA are correct, then land routes aren't being blocked - a further conclusion would be WP:OR on my part, so I'll refrain.

If Israeli sources are wrong, and land routes are part of the Gaza blockade, then ships are the only way left to get in the supplies.

Has anybody tried to write about this aspect of the dispute? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Egypt also offered to have the aid delivered through the Rafah crossing. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Land routes aren't completely blocked. However, the activists position is that the aid that is allowed in isn't sufficient for the needs of the people, and other critical materials are being completely blocked (such as cement). Both positions are understandable. Palestinians don't have cement so they can't repair schools bombed by Israel. Israelis fear that the Palestinians will use the cement to build smuggling tunnels. And both Israel and Egypt are trying to overthrow the Hamas government by putting pressure on the Palestinian people to turn against them. ← George ^talk 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I find your analysis to be wrong. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is not limited to land, it is also by sea and by air (and underground). There are ways for supplies to get in, other than by boat. Israel has offered to deliver the flotilla's cargo by land, by their refused. ShalomOlam (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a land/air/sea blockade. There are no ways for certain supplies to get in, other than running the blockade. Which is what the activists were trying. ← George ^talk 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

flotilla's goals

I would like to get you attention about the following definitions of the flotilla's goals, as published in official documents by the flotilla's administration:

• To support the Palestinian people
• To show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege
• To prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken
• To deliver relief supplies to Gaza

Only 1 out of 4 of the goals is related to a humanitarian cause. The rest - 3 out of 4 goals - are not humanitarian causes. This should be noted in the article. (I'm not sure how) ShalomOlam (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding the list of their goals somewhere in the body of the article would make sense, properly sourced of course. ← George ^talk 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Killed" or "Shot and killed"

In the lead there was a recent change from "killed" to "shot and killed". However there doesn't seem to be any RS that all the people who died were shot. So what is the correct wording here?

Zuchinni one (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shot and killed" sounds bias to me. These people died in a battle while fighting. This was not a shooting range, sniper fire, a manhunt or an execution. "Killed" is sufficient (and neutral). ShalomOlam (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The change was mine, and was supported by a RS, perhaps since removed citing forensics reports on all nine. ShalomOlam, would you prefer "killed by gunshots" or "shot and killed"; no other implication was intended, such as a shooting range. "While fighting" is now in dispute for at least two, the photographer and the American.--Carwil (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that "killed" is sufficient, and that the term you chose is too ambiguous and may be misleading. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Killed also sounds more NPOV to me Zuchinni one (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would lean towards "shot and killed", just b/c killed alone makes how they died unclear. I haven't actually read the language though. If the surrounding sentences make it clear that they were all shot, then it might not be necessary to say "shot and killed".

I appreciate the NPOV argument, but I think clarity trumps NPOV. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that you have to use to word "shot" to make it clear. It's sufficient to write that they were killed during the raid of Israeli Comandos. If the word "died" was used, and not "killed", I would agree that it's not clear, but this is not the case. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Should journalist accounts be a separate subsection

Currently they are together with the flotilla participants and organizers. But that might suggest that the all the journalists support the viewpoints of one side.

If journalists are NPOV it seems they should be separated from BOTH the israeli and activist accounts. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the goal should be to merge it into one section. Not saying it is possible though.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of "Go back to Auschwitz" transmission by one of the ships

(Originally raised in this discussion: Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz")

This Walla News article[13] includes a recording of this dialogue. I've included a translation of the article (original in Hebrew) and a transcript of the conversation in the recording below:

The Marmara to the navy: "Go back to Auschwitz"

A recording of the radio network shows the dialogue between navy ships to the command bridge of the Marmara. The activists on-board the ship were called to stop and replied - "We're helping Arabs, don't forget 9/11"

The IDF Spokesperson released a tape tonight (Friday) that records parts of the dialogue between the command bridge of the ship Marmara when entering Israeli territorial waters, and the navy ships calling it to stop where it is. The tape has a man's and woman's voices as they converse with navy forces.

"This is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade," is heard on the radio in a call to the bridge of the Marmara. One of the activists responds to IDF forces - "Shut up - go back to Auschwitz," and immediately afterward a woman can be heard telling the navy: "We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter." Then the man's voice is heard again, saying "We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11."

Hundreds of the Gaza flotilla activists who were deported from Israel landed starting Wednesday in Istanbul and received a warm welcome by thousands of cheering supporters, carrying Turkish and Palestinian flags and shouting calls against Israel. Also on the planes were the 9 bodies of the activists killed during the commandos' takeover of the ships, four of them Turkish citizens.

The planes carried 466 of the deportees, mostly Turks but also British, Norwegian, Dutch and Spanish citizens. Some of the deportees claimed that the number of dead was greater than what was reported and that Israel had removed evidence from the scene. "We've been scared, frightened, kidnapped and attacked with battleships while we were taking aid to needy people in Gaza," said Mustafa Ahmet, a British citizen of Turkish origin.

A transcript of the recording:

- ???, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.

- Shut up, go back to Auschwitz.

- We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter.

- We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11 guys.

82.102.159.23 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• i see lie or error in it: "The IDF Spokesperson released a tape tonight (Friday) that records parts of the dialogue between the command bridge of the ship Marmara when entering Israeli territorial waters, and the navy ships calling it to stop where it is"

OR IF IDF annexed somehow the Mediterranean Sea this may lead to war at lest with NATO. That should be more highlighted, otherwise the upcoming "Freedom Racing" Cyprus-Interception and around may fail into war zone. The planed cruising of thousand observers/tourist may be risky vacation plan to risky even for adrenaline tourists. Ai 00 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC

I'm giving Walla News the benefit of the doubt here and assuming this is just a stupid (albeit glaring) error. Here's a better source with the same recording[14]. It's also mentioned here[15]. 82.102.159.23 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

an account that should be taken "with a pinch of salt" as it comes from the army which is responsible for the killings (and needs relief now). also, we would need a reliable translation.--Severino (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a desperate attempt at vilifying the crew of the ship. I wouldn’t include it till it is verified by a reliable third party. Likeminas (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.132.173 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The soldiers supposedly contacting the Marmara are clearly saying "Defne Y, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade." As for the second voice, according to her husband, it is the voice of Huwaida Arraf, who says she was on board the Challenger I. http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/proof-emerges-idf-audio-of-radio-communicatio --Fjmustak (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So epople stop reverting my edit claiming "opinion", this audio recording is NOT the original, but an audio reproduction by the IDF. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html RobMasterFunk (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording in the ynet article is misleading - that is an edited (condensed) version of the original recording, not a "reproduction"[16]. 82.102.159.23 (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• The whole claim of things shouted sounds fishy. The best thing to do is move it to the Israeli version section, rather than the Initial contact section. Abductive (reasoning) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also reported on Ynet: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html and HaAretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1172392.html ShalomOlam (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ynet is a website, we shouldn't say "Israeli media published". RomaC (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sticks, butter knives and other utensils = weaponry?

The section about the "weapons" found by the IDF is a strech because basically anything could be used as a weapon. I think using the word "weapon" gives the article a bisased view of what the IDF considered to be weapons. Throwing a dish over somebody's head could definitely hurt somebody but (I assume that) in most people's minds a dish wouldn't be categorized as a weapon. Likeminas (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A general observation, aside, re. usage, albeit from a distance since I work in Criminal Justice in Scotland and the accepted use in report writing is that anything used as a weapon is described thereafter described as "the weapon". That is not to say that /any/ butter knife or bottle, say, is "weaponry" but that it has the potential to /become/ a weapon and if it has been used as such, it does not "lose" that legal description at a later date even if shown out of context of actually being used. There are separate definitions for other terms such as "dangerous weapon" in various legislations (e.g. "knives having a blade three inches or more in length") but that is a separate term. Semantics, I know... :) Fwiw, anyhow! Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything with a blade, that you can stab someone with, can be reffered to as a 'cold weapon'. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But that makes the mentioning of such weapons meaningless, because using that standard, that means that every ship that has a kitchen carry "weapons". I think it's best to be specific. If the fact is that kitchen knives and sticks were found, then write that knives and clubs were found. There are reports in Swedish media that the IDF held up a razor to a Swedish passenger and claimed it to be a weapon. AadaamS (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral reporting

I can see at least two Israel dominated POVs just in the lead - numerous sources (including the live al-Jazeera reports) have claimed that Israel munitions had killed two activists before the assault started. Some poorly translated Turkish sources are claiming there are a number of people missing or alternatively that there were more deaths with the bodies thrown overboard. 86.181.224.19 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Another witness, Yücel Köse, who was on the ship Gazze repeated Yıldırım’s allegations of missing people. “The Mavi Marmara was bombed right in front of our eyes. They threw the wounded into the water,” he said. Köse said the soldiers were upset when some of their men were held by activists aboard the Mavi Marmara".

from: Todays Zaman, "Israel killed more than 9, threw wounded into sea, witnesses say" 04 June 2010, Friday

Yaron Hadany 08:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that RED FLAG applies here. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Location

This BBC article gives a good idea of where this all went down. Anyone want to suggest how to refer to the location in the article? It seems to have been a bit confusing because of different RS giving slightly different wordings ... but no maps other than this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the event took place in the Mediterranean Sea, in international waters. Previously the article also stated that this was off the coast of Israel and Gaza. I removed 'Gaza' from this description, since it is not correct, as the map in the BBC link above shows. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was originally thinking of using the BBC map and google earth to get a location ... but that would be WP:Synth, so I'm not sure what to do. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an "official" location at the moment, as in exact coordinates. The most exact version I've seen are 125 km west of Israel (2nd-hand Israeli source) and 108 km outside of Israeli territorial waters (2nd-hand source from the Mava Marmara): those calculate to about the same distance, but don't give a position. Physchim62 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To say the event simply took place "in the Mediterranean Sea" is to speak only half the truth. Geographic relativity is crucial to where, why and how the event took place. "The Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel and Gaza in international waters." as I originally posted the location the other day accomplishes the tasks it needs to: It provides a relative (although not exact) location for the event, and also gives the immediately relevant parties involved, Israel and the Gaza (redirected to the Gaza Strip), and as well makes the reader aware that the event took place outside the territorial waters of any one nation or entity. The location in the info box should remain as it appears now. Sixer Fixer (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the BBC map it looks to be over 100km from the coast of Gaza and Israel. So I'm not sure that "off the coast" is correct. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the BBC map it looks to be over 100km from the coast of Gaza, but it was 28km away from Israel's tritorial waters (according to ynet.co.il reporter). So "off the coast of Israel" is more correct then "off the coast Israel and Gaza". ShalomOlam (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Can someone have a look at the content that was added here?  Cs32en Talk to me  21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis of the article

I have made a brief linguistic analysis concerning the reporting verbs from the section of the article which details the description of events from both sides: the Israeli account, and the account of the journalists/flotilla organizers/activists.

Broadly speaking, reporting verbs/language psychologically prepare the reader to comprehend what they are about to read in a particular way. They can put the reader into a pre-perception frame of mind coloured by neutrality, e.g. somebody ‘says’ something, they can put the reader on the alert, e.g. ‘according to’, or they can encourage an attitude of scepticism, e.g. sb. ‘alleges/claims’ sth.

What I discovered in this portion of the article is a distinct anti-Israeli bias.

Below is an indicated version of my findings:

italic – indicates neutral language

bold – indicates alerting language

BOLD CAPS – indicates sceptical language

The most commonly used reporting verb, ‘say’, is neutral and so has not been highlighted.

Israel's account

According to the Israeli military, Israeli commandos prepared to encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, were armed with paintball guns and handguns as sidearms.[86][87] The soldiers had orders to peacefully convince the activists to give up, and if not successful, use non-lethal force to commandeer the ship. The commandos were instructed to use the sidearms in an emergency, when their lives were at risk.[88] The Israeli military reported that the commandos were immediately attacked after descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship. Soldiers were beaten badly, including stabbings, and one was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet (9.1 m) below.[89] Two Israeli commandos had their guns wrested away. An Israeli commando said that there was live fire at some point against them from below deck.[90] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[90][91] According to Major Avital Leibovich of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with knives, slingshots, spikes, and clubs, and with pistols that were seized from Israeli commandos.[92][93][94] One soldier reported that the attack "looked like the Ramallah lynching."[95] Stun grenades and tear gas were used in an attempt to disperse activists. After this proved ineffective, the commandos requested and received permission to use live ammunition. The commandos then shot activists in the legs, which forced them to disperse. The commandos reached the bridge and took over the ship after 30 minutes.[96][97][98] The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident.[99] One video ALLEGEDLY SHOWS how the first commandos to rappel down to the deck were attacked by a mob, and includes a soldier being thrown to the lower deck. Other videos CLAIM TO SHOW at least one incident in which a stun grenade and fire bomb was thrown at the soldiers, as well activists beating one of the soldiers and trying to kidnap him.[84] Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, IS DESCRIBED BY THE IDF AS SHOWING activists preparing for a clash hours before the Israeli Navy made contact with the ship.[84] Another video shows the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. He jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the gun wielding activist, 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.[100] According to a preliminary navy investigation, some passengers attempted to take hostage three unconscious commandos by dragging them into one of the passenger halls below . They were held in passenger halls for several minutes until they regained consciousness and managed to join the other soldiers.[100] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[101][46][88]

Journalist's, flotilla organizers' and activists' accounts

Organizers of the convoy have denied the account of Israeli military. Arafat Shoukri, of the Free Gaza Movement (FGM), one the co-organizers of the flotilla convoy, said those on board one ship had called them by telephone to say that Israeli helicopters had arrived.[102] He said that from that moment on, he had witnessed shootings, and afterwards people on board shouted 'We are raising the white flag, stop shooting at us'.[102] He dismissed Israel's claims of activists having pistols and other weapons as "cheap propaganda".[102] According to Mavi Marmara activists and personnel, Israel initially opened fire with warning shots but when the ship didn't stop the attack began. Activists said that sound and smoke bombs were used and then IDF commandos surrounded the ship and boarded from helicopters and from the sea. In contrast with the Israeli account, activists say that Israelis did fire on the boat before boarding, though they said that the use of force was non-lethal at that point. Activists on board agree that there was resistance but say it was not organized; rather the Israeli helicopters, ships and gunfire "created the atmosphere that people wanted to defend themselves."[103] Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge.[104] The wife of the Mavi Marmara captain, Nilüfer Ören, stated that IDF began tracking them after 90 miles (140 km), there were 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announcement was made while the commandos were boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am. She also said that sound bomb and smoke bombs were used. Therefore activists and crewmembers used gasmasks.[105] Norman Paech, a former member of the German parliament Left Party who was aboard the Marmara said he only saw three activists resisting. "They had no knives, no axes, only sticks that they used to defend themselves," he told reporters. But he said he could "not rule out" that others used weapons somewhere else on the boat.[106] Another eyewitness Huwaida Arraf says that the Israelis smashed her face against the ground and stepped on it; later they cuffed her and put a bag over her head.[107] Writer Edda Manga said five of the activists died directly while the rest died because they were denied medical treatment.[108] Kutlu Tiryaki, a captain of another vessel in the flotilla, said that the passengers did not have weapons at all, but only came to bring humanitarian help in a peaceful manner. [109] According to Al Jazeera journalist Jamal Elshayyal, at this point soldiers already shot "almost indiscriminately" with live ammunition from the helicopter.[110] According to Elshayyal three persons died while passengers including a Knesset member tried in vain to make the soldiers help the wounded.[110] Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[111][112] Prof. Mattias Gardell who was on-board stated that the soldiers came on-board with sharp loaded weapons with laser sights and at least four persons were killed execution style.[113] Due to a communications blackout after the attack, it was originally difficult to get accounts from activists on board. Newly released activists are beginning to make statements to the press.[102][104][114] Activist Huwaida Arraf reported that once onboard the Challenger One, Israeli troops seized all communication equipment, cameras and memory cards from activists.[115] IHH president Bulent Yildrim stated that "passengers on the ship showed civil resistance, the press was there, and that the İHH (had) called on the passengers not to allow Israeli soldiers in".[116]

Summary of findings:

Israeli perspective:

neutral - 2

alerting - 3

sceptical - 3

journalists'/flotilla organisers'/activists' perspective:

neutral - 3

alerting - 3

sceptical - 0

I draw this to your attention and hope that in the interest of fairness your editors will put it right, as I do believe that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.3 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work trying to keep this section neutral. Unfortunately because the sections are devoted to accounts of what each side said they will almost be guaranteed to be POV. It might be best to try and keep this section as clean as possible for now and then go in later for a thorough NPOV workover. At the moment any improvements are getting wiped out by the numerous edits. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that the information in this particular portion of the article will be POV - bias is inevitable as each side presents their particular perspective. What is of concern is the way in which this information is presented to the reader with the use of particular linguistic reporting structures - bias in this area is not inevitable and Wikipedia may control its use to ensure balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.3 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This all falls to pieces if you take into account the history of Israeli sources sugar coating themselves. The sources of the 'other side' is not Palestine; it's a whole array of countries that don't give a damn and may as well be more neutral. --Leladax (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I know there are several new editors so please read and start following WP:CLAIM and WP:ALLEGED. Examples: Israel claimed = don't do that. Israel said = good. The video doe snot alleged anything. It shows something. It can show something that Israel says if you need it to be clarified.Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my recent edits, take into account that "IDF says" was removed from the captions immediatly before. Photos and footages that quality doesn't "show" anything but what we are told to see. So, if the interpretation of the footages, the recovered "weaponry", and the use of the "weaponry" against the IDF is not an allegation from the IDF, nor did the IDF told what the footage "showed" and what was recovered and the use given to that... well NPOV would require that captions to be deleted for good. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't take offense and don't deflect it onto other editors. Just don't do it again. One thing that might work: "The IDF says footage shows activists beating an Israeli soldier with an iron pipe on the MV Mavi Marmar" Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cptnono: As my edits were ironically reverted per NPOV (being the current text undoubtely POV), I'll follow your suggestion, after waiting for some comments from other editors. . Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I didn't realize it was a hotspot. My edit was a ctr+f on all "claim"s and it was caught up in it. Sorry about that.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is impossible to get a consensus I would go by: 1)delete them; 2)WP:BURO and use allegedly as it is the most pertinent terminology in this particular case. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

George's edit is fine. I think it could be trimmed (I removed "snapshot" and moved things around a bit up above) but that isn't a neutrality concern.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact is that we don't know who is in the video frame, and if not for the IDF's statement I doubt we could ever claim to know. The IDF has said it was an activist, and we don't have significant reasons to doubt the claim (if we did, words like alleged or claimed might make sense), so we should just blandly state that the IDF said that the video shows an activist hitting a soldier with a pipe. Also, the term "footage" sounds very odd the way it was being used. ← George ^talk 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Per Leladax. If we've got references to one side "sugar coating" their stories, then we should include them as it will help give readers perspective. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

I don't know why some editors keep reverting the caption of one of the images to "A photo by the IDF showing items recovered by the Israeli Defense Forces from the Mavi Marmara; these items, which include knives, cutlery, sticks, and other diverse tools, were used as weapons[144] against the IDF by activists on board."

According to wiki-rules, one should not state opinions as facts. All we know is that IDF has said it has found these, and has said they were used as weapons. That's an opinion. It should not be stated as a fact. Let people read and make up their minds as they wish. It is very disappointing to see opinions are repeatedly asserted as facts.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Much like above, how about "IDF(or Israeli sources) say footage shows..."Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that, since IDF has said it anyways. That's fine. To assert that "these items were used as weapons against the IDF by activists on board" is clearly wrong. But someone keeps adding this over and over again. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We are running into lots of language that casts doubt on assertions like "claim" and "alleged". If we can wipe those out and keep it to "so and so says this footage shows" and "so and so said troops did x,y, and z" then we should be fine.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree --DoostdarWKP (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a difficult rule, if your goal is an unbiased article. Just say that Side X called Item Y a "Z". Like, Hamas (X) called the supplies (Y) "humanitarian" (Z). Or Israel (X) said the knives (Y) were "used as weapons" (Z).

We need not try to be "objective" - let alone "definitive". In fact, it takes less time to give the SOURCE for each assertion (this side said crackers, the other side said wafers) than to "get to the bottom of it". We'll be talking about this incident for months and years to come. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So are we in agreement here and in the section above on the image captions? I believe there are three total (beating, guy being tossed, weapons displayed) that need to be adjusted to "The IDF" or "Israeli sources". Groovy?Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine for me. I agree with User:Cptnono's last comment. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage for interested editors.--Nosfartu (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption on image of activists beating soldiers

No one disputes that this video depicts activists beating a soldier. No need for hedging in the caption; attributing the video to the IDF is enough for NPOV. If anyone has an RS that disputes the contents of the video, please provide.

I have changed the caption to Snapshot from footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods beating a fallen soldier. I argued for this above and several editors agreed.

Discuss here before making changes, please. Enough of the edit warring.

 &#151;Rafi  23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no soldier (indeed, no person) shown in the caption. Nor we do know who is handling what. Your edit is definitely POV. Please discuss consensus above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was here: Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage. The video is abundantly clear regarding who is beating and who is being beaten; if you need RS's they are cited in the previous discussion.  &#151;Rafi  23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I know is "Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF" is not sufficient or acceptable. The person who made that edit needs to go read WP:POINT and consider not working on this article. People need to say right now if they disagree with no attribution based on thinking Israel fabricating it or trying to tone down the Palestinian side of things. If that is the case we need to know now. If it is becasue the image is not clear than I understand attribution.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia attribute everything to a source for neutrality? Like the article doesn't say "Israel stole thing from journalists" it says it quotes journalists or journalist associations. If we have to attribute journalists, why wouldn't we attribute one of the sides in the dispute that has a narrative to promote?--99.50.129.231 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? We can see in the video that a soldier is being taken down and then the merceneries beating something on the ground where he fell. So, you say "maybe they were hitting the ground next to the soldier"?? יובל מדר (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

So maybe we can also add "After this, Israel massacred the peaceful activists and confiscated all other recordings."--71.156.87.5 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Perspective?

I don't really see the point in having a "Historical Perspective" section on this current event article...perhaps it should be separated and/or removed.

Yarou (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this has been discussed before already and the problem is simply that the article is too long already. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, putting the article's length forward as the reason to remove is a weak excuse. The Exodus part is only 1260 characters big. It is funny how you concern about the article's length while there are 2 images in the article (this and this) that shows the same thing: Israeli soldiers being attacked. So if the article's length is really bothering you, then you should remove one image.

The part about the Exodus is essential, because too many people make a reference about it. I will give you some examples:

• Israel: remember 1947 and the Exodus ship - The Guardian
• Exodus Revisited - The New York Times
• We've been here before ... but Israel has failed to learn lessons of history - Sydney Morning Herald
• Mavi Marmara and the Exodus - The New York Sun
• Fiasco on the high seas - Haaretz

I could continue giving examples of comparisons with the SS Exodus. Randam (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be added and the section is only 2 paragraphs and links to the main article SS Exodus. Perhpas the section name cna be "Gaza Flotilla and the Exodus", like the NY time heading. To not make a mention when there are so many international papers (Jewish included) making the comparison would be wrong of us as editors.Ccson (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll change the section heading to "Mari Marmara and the Exodus". Please list what text you think is not supported by the current references. I'm sure I can a reliable and verifiable source in the SS Exodus article.Ccson (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at length here: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#Claims_of_previous_boardings_in_international_waters Also keep in mind that A LOT of the more relevant background information Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#how_it_all_began... was removed due to length issues. At best this deserves a link, and not an entire section, but I'm not sure that this event is relevant at all. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How can you say its not relevant when so many natinal newspapers are reminding the world of the comparison? I think it needs a section so that we can point to the Main article.Ccson (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that this does not merit an entire section for this article; said event may be referenced by notable sources but that does not mean it fits within the scope and relevance of the article. Yarou (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What about putting it as a subsection of the Mavi Marmara sections? I'm still not sure why 1260 characters is considered huge when newspapers are making an entire article about the two incidents. The Exodus fits within the scope of this article because that's why the newspapers are discussing the Exodus now, 63 years later.Ccson (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the article will be "polished" by the History staff", let them decide on the proper length.Ccson (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The length is not really the issue here; there are many comparisons that can be made between this event and similar events that have occurred in history. However, these comparisons do not contribute to the article in any substantive way; in other words, it does not fit the scope of the article. Your justification for adding it is based on the fact that several newspapers are drawing this specific comparison between the Mavi Marmara and Exodus, but that does not prove that this comparison fits within the scope of this article. Yarou (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your statement

"I'm still not sure why 1260 characters is considered huge when newspapers are making an entire article about the two incidents."

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia. The events on the Exodus were not directly related to these events in any way. Their only connection are some superficial similarities. This article is about the Gaza flotilla raid, not historical maritime incidents. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I renamed the section to "See also" and removed all the cruft that was in place. I still do not see the relevance of it, nor does it fit the scope of the article, but hopefully this will resolve this situation. Yarou (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your compromis is unacceptable and you should have gain consensus before reverting my work with a 24 hour period. I know that wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the majority of the references are from newspapers. The fact that a notable periodical with a respected editor makes the reference reliable and notable, and therefore our job is not wonder why a professional reporter or editor would make such a comparions, we should just be NEUTRAL and make the edit. Please replace my text?Ccson (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of the historical section is unacceptable for it is very much related and in line with this event from multiple ways and perspectives. That's why it was widely included included in numerous media reports covering the event. It is not sensible to remove this section merely on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --386-DX (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look at Zuchinni one's links, consensus has already been reached that the article can do without irrelevant information. Yarou (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Zuchinni. Yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the reason why we put this is something else. It's about the (historical) context. I can give you an example with a very different subject. It is like how the article Air Force One photo op incident talks about the September 11 attacks. Therefore, we should put these major comparisons/memories as context to the article. Randam (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's make a compromise. The entire section "Historical Perspective" goes away, in return there will be a short "See also" section + 1 image of the Exodus. Nothing more, nothing less. OK? Randam (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Randam, my opinions on what constitutes a compromise don't really matter. I'm only one person and wikipedia is a collaboration. But, while my personal opinion is that the Exodus is not relevant, I'm not seriously opposed to a See Also section with a link to the Exodus. However I'm not sure a picture is necessary. Simply a link and a brief description as already exists there.

But be aware that there had been a See Also section earlier that got WAY out of control. My main objection isn't to including the content you feel is important ... but the fact that once one thing appears, lots of other stuff tends to come along with it. Then we have huge discussions in the talk section and eventually the entire bit (including the items people initially fought for) get removed.

Then someone new comes along and says ... "hey, we really should include XXX" ... and the cycle of edits repeats.

Zuchinni one (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point, but we should not hide information because of a fear of a edit-war. Let's try this and see what happens. I will help you by preventing escalation of this issue. I think 1 picture doesn't hurt anyone. That's how a compromise works. Nobody gets 100% of what it wants. Randam (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The way the article is currently structured follows the consensus we have reached in this topic of discussion. I extend a warm thanks to all those involved. Yarou (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni was right above, and he's right again here. This other historical event has no relation at all to this recent event, and thus is totally out of scope of the article. And by creating a "see also" section just to find a place to keep this picture and link, is not only wrong because it doesn't belong here, but is wrong because it's open ended and will surely lead to an edit war. What else is vaguely relevant and should be "seen"? Examples of Hamas violence along with photos? The section should just be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If I have understood the comments correctly a compromise is too have a "See also" link. --Kslotte (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, I think it was a bad idea to have references. --Kslotte (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this disputed? Should it be in the lead?

"(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas [8])"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366106430&oldid=366104829

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Video taken from the GFF has been edited and used by Israel. And apparently the 700 names on the GFF passenger lists are being microscoped in attempts to tar and blame the victims. Meanwhile, what do we know, for example, about "Sgt. S", who claims six kills ("These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes")? Israeli video, and the names, backgrounds and service records of the IDF personnel and those in the command chain are in the control of military censors. Sure this is common army policy, but how can we write in a neutral voice from qualitatively asymmetrical sources? I say under the circumstances we be careful we're not just presenting the Israeli narrative, i.e. avoid parroting any judgment/slander of GFF passengers. If we need a policy how about WP:BLP? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Move clause out of the introduction

Immediately after the intro says that nine pro palestinian activists died, it says "(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas)." I'm not disputing this fact, but it looks like it was just put there to demonize the protesters. Information like that belongs later in the article where they discuss the details of the passengers. The most important thing is that the protesters were killed, not that some of them had ties to Hamas. 174.18.21.75 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to the entire event and so belongs in the header. Rklawton (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is. They didn't die because they had ties with Hamas. ShalomOlam (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it belong in the article? If properly sourced, yes. Does it belong in the already over-bloated lead? No, unless the goal is to poison the well. ← George ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sofia and Eleftheri Mesogeios are the same ship.

The MS Sofia and the Eleftheri Mesogeios are the same ship: The photos at http://www.shiptogaza.se/sv/b%C3%A5ten-foton (the Swedish site) show the word Mesegeios (in Greek letters) in some pictures and Sofia in the others.

The photos at http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/showallphotos.aspx?mmsi=239219000#top_photo (of the Eleftheri Mesogeios) show the word Sofia (in Latin alphabet) on the older photos and Sofia and Eleftheri Mesogeios in Greek alphabet on others.

Moreover, the Free Gaza Movement's press release mentions only MS Sofia, and there are a total of six not seven vessels. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What's in sources and article text not matching up

I'm finding that some of th statements in the article aren't accurate representations of what's in the sources. I took out:

Free Mediterranean

Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge. ref name="Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists"/

Because the source doesn't seem to me to indicate that this took place on the Free Mediterranean but instead on the main ship where the conflict took place. I'm also not sure that something attributed to six greek participants should be changed to "activists" which implies to me at least that the accuasation was widespread. Bu tmaybe that point is too nitpicky. If the source does say that this took place on that ship then feel free to restore. Or restore it to a more general section rather than one about a ship not mentioned in that part of th article. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some times people change it to their interpretation, other times the source itself as edited dynamically. Anyways, we should just report what the source says.--Nosfartu (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix it and put it back in. One guy did make the accusation so I attributed it. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also a little confused because Wikipedia's article says six ships participated and names them, and this isn't one of them. But then this other Free Mediterranean is mentioned further down in the article. I can't find anything about it online??? Anyone? Freakshownerd (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT-Misread

Here's the quote from the source:

Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks."

And, it turns out you're correct about an extra ship: the Sofia and Free Mediterranean are the same boat. I'm restoring and merging the deleted section.--Carwil (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing 'off the coast'

As per Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Location and the following BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm

It might be a good idea to remove reference to "off the coast" as the location of the raid.

Why?

1. Well first of all according to the map in the BBC article the convoy was more than 100km from both Israel and Gaza.
2. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about this happening in International Waters. That seems to be in opposition to "off the coast"
3. Lots of different RS seem to give lots of different descriptions, they all seem to say international waters but only a few say 'off the coast'. So far this BBC RS is the only that seems to have a map (someone want to try and find another map?)
4. The location has been the subject of some edit wars. So it seems like we really should make a decision and stick to it.

The best thing that I can come up with is to say 'Northwest of Gaza, in international waters'

But I'm very open to suggestions.

Any major opposition to removing "off the coast"? Zuchinni one (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

in international waters of the Mediterranean sea? RomaC (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Anyone object? Zuchinni one (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I object. Based on the BBC map, it looks to be a least 140km north from the coast of Gaza , and only 28km west of Israel's tritorial waters (according to ynet.co.il reporter). ShalomOlam (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Rachel Corrie seized

A report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National news bulletin 2 PM (GMT+10)on Saturday, 05 June 2010 said the MV Rachel Corrie has been seized.Bernard Macdougall (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an RS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10244301.stm Zuchinni one (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"There had been earlier reports that soldiers from the Israeli navy had boarded the ship, named the Rachel Corrie. But according to the Twitter account of the Cyprus-based Free Gaza Movement, those reports were incorrect." CBC  Cs32en Talk to me  04:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"An international aid ship en route for the Gaza Strip was intercepted by Israeli troops early on Saturday, the Gaza-based committee awating the vessel told AFP." AFP  Cs32en Talk to me  05:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite a few reports that the Rachel Corrie had been boarded, the BBC Radio News cited a passenger on the vessel, about 3PM (GMT+10) Saturday as saying she has not yet been (despite the presence of zodiacs and other vessels nearby).Bernard Macdougall (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio News has just quoted the IDF: "As of now we have not boarded the ship." Bernard Macdougall (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV news has just reported that Israeli forces have boarded the MV Rachel Corrie. Bernard Macdougall (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: IDF commando soldiers boarded the ship, and took control of it without violence. The ship is now taken to Ashdod port where the cargo will be unloaded, checked and then sent to the Gaza Strip through Israel's land crossing. [17] MathKnight 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Staff Sergeant S. - An Israeli commando who killed 6

St.-Sgt. S. - commando who killed 6. The Jerusalem Post, 6.4.2010 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 IDF.is.Lying (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although for different reasons, I think this is a fantastic source. This si someone spelling out that tactics used. I really hope we find a source to verify this.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Colonel admitted sabotage

Meanwhile, a senior Israel Defense Forces officer also spoke at the committee meeting on Tuesday, explaining the details of the IDF's operation on the Gaza flotilla on Monday.

He said that the army had decided against sabotaging a ship in the Gaza flotilla at the center of Monday's deadly clashes, out of fear that the vessel would be stranded in the middle of the ocean and at risk of a humanitarian crisis.

(...)

During his briefing on the operation to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Colonel Itzik Turgeman hinted that the IDF had sabotaged the engines of the other five ships, saying that "they took care of them."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-chief-israel-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

IDF.is.Lying (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

photojournalist tried to hide flash disk under his tongue

"Bayhan said the journalists in the ship including him tried to protect the video footage and photos they took and he hided a small flash disk in which he saved the photos he took on the ship under his tongue but it was noticed by an Israeli doctor during a medical examination and was taken away from him".

Today’s Zaman photojournalist tried to hide flash disk under his tongue, 03 June 2010, Thursday

Yaron Hadany 09:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaron hadany (talk • contribs)

Photo

Why showing a photo of the IDF soldiers and not the terror activists on the boat attacking the soldiers? I think removing the photo will make this article more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is so biased in favour of the Israeli position it is beyond repair. Remove the photo and replace it with a Star of David. Add the final touch to a work of fiction! Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777 what do you want? Why showing Israeli soldiers only and not the actions of the people on the ship? If this article is not going to put two pictures of the two sides of this conflict, the best thing to do in order to keep on this article neutral is to remove the picture.

In addition, "This article is so biased in favour of the Israeli position" which is totally wrong, this time the attempt to make the IDF look like "terrorists" didn't work that well so you say it is Pro-Israeli. But what you do not understand is that the IDF used the most human actions this time and many times before, that's why you think it is "biased" - which is not that true actually due to the picture and some of the text in the article. Talstol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

2nd paragraph of lead getting full of he-said / she-said & POV language

This should be trimmed down to verifiable facts. There is plenty of room for both sides' accusations against each other in the "accounts" sections. Two example concerns are:

1) To the average reader, anything put in the lead appears to be extremely relevant. Some of the bits are, but others, like the Turkish autopsy report, belong elsewhere in the article.

2) As the amount of he-said / she-said has grown, the language has become more POV. For example "angry" activists. Who knows they were angry, perhaps they were just defending themselves. Regardless, this is POV and does not belong in the lead.

These are not the only problems with that paragraph, just specific examples. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one thing we have discussed already and I agree with reducing the use of quotes and the he said she said or the ongoing narrative war. But I also think that the lead has lacked IDF claims that are becoming more and more seconded from outside perspectives. The passengers are contradicting eachother and the video evidence is not as foggy as some would hope. As much as it might be unexpected, details on the boarders getting attacked and the activists going down swinging might have been what happened. Maybe some of the passengers are not the victims so many originally assumed. The fighting and transgressions from both sides on that deck need play in the lead. Not a novel or anything but more than the whitewashing we have given it. We will start to look more biased than some of the more frowned upon sources if we don't allow for more than just "people are mad at Israel" in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni, do I understand that you regard the autopsy results as one side's accusations against the other? Do RS discount the medical examiner? This article exists in large part because people were killed, information on that is germane. Agree that "angry" may not be required, also why qualify as "Turkish autopsy" unless this is a type of autopsy that differs from others? RomaC (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, It's not that I view the autopsy results as biased in and of themselves. But the WAY they were inserted into the lead and the emphasis on "shot in the head" and "extremely close range" make implications that the soldiers were specifically trying to kill people ... without mention of the IDF's claim that the attackers were wearing bullet proof vests and that IDF soldiers were shot Before they returned live fire. The autopsy results might be relevant or they might be biased, just as the soldiers accounts might be relevant or biased. My point is that they should should not be in the lead in such a way as to make implications about the actions of the soldiers, just as Israeli accounts which make implications about the passengers should not be in the lead in a way that implies bias "murderous rage in their eyes" and what not. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, if the IDF and the Turkish authorities each did autopsies, they _might_ come to very different conclusions due to their respective bias. Thus it's important to keep the wording clearly showing who performed it, though it could be replaced with a much more wordy "Autopsies performed by Turkish authorities show..." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But even then, why does it belong in the lead unless there is something extremely important about the results. And if the results are so important then there would need be balance of the Israel accounts of bullet proof vests. That would just end up bloating the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of article - "Gaza flotilla raid" - is wrong

The use of the word "raid" is wrong. According to some on-line dictionaries, a raid is: "a search without warning" or "a sudden surprise attack". But it is known that the attack was not sudden or surprise, and there were lots of warning before this took place. So, "raid" should be replaced with something else. Any suggestions? ShalomOlam (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There were very long and detaild discussins and a voting process regarding the name of the article. Please check the archives. --386-DX (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Raid" was the word most often being used by reliable sources then, and possible remain the predominant term at present. I'd say that "Gaza aid convoy seizure" would be a good candidate for replacing the current title, but I suggest to wait for some time and then check again how reliable sources describe the event.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Free Gaza convoy seizure" sounds better to me. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this article should be changed into "Gaza flotilla" article and the new article should speak about the whole flotilla subject, and the results. It is not very neutral to make an article about the "RAID" itself, because the "raid" was only a part of the flotilla incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The title may change, this happens. What is there now is the name of the flotilla and a common action verb for what was done. If you have suggestions please make them. Note that there may be alternative names included. RomaC (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Take over" or "Seizure" is more appropriate. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We would have to check whether using the term "seizure" would imply that the operation had been legal.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "seizure" implies that the operation had been legal. How about changing it to: "Free Gaza flotilla"? ShalomOlam (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about the precise meaning of the word "seizure". While a number of newspapers use "seizure" in the sense of "takeover by force", the article Seizure puts a lot of emphasis on the legality. Similarly to WP:ONEEVENT, I'd assume that we would have to stick to a name that describes the event rather than the flotilla. However, "Free Gaza flotilla" may become a subarticle, or may become an additional article if notability beyond the incident is being established.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be named "Free Gaza flotilla takeover"? ShalomOlam (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

number of passengers injured

Article says that the number of passengers injured is 60, but all RS attached to the article do not support this. One of the RS says "several were injured". Other say there were 28 injuries. So I don't know where the number "60" comes from, but it should be removed, if there are no RS. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

60 was from an early account. If there are multiple RS now with a different number we can use that, but it's probably still best to use "at least" until we know 100% for sure what the number is. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide even one RS from the last 24 hours, that still say there are at least 60 injured? ShalomOlam (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Journalist on board Corroborate IDF Testimony

Activists on a Gaza-bound Turkish ship seized four Israeli marines before other commandos stormed aboard using live ammunition, a Lebanese cameraman said in an account on Thursday that echoed elements of Israeli testimony. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG Please add this to the article79.178.42.134 (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref for see also section

editsemiprotected

I saw the sign, so here is a source one can add http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion However I can't edit it myself due to the article being semi locked Opelboat (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... --Kslotte (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please use "editsemiprotected for semi-protected pages. It just makes it easier for admins to find the fully protected requests. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry didn't know there were a different template Opelboat (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kslotte (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seizure by "naval forces"?

The first sentence of the article now calls the incident a "seizure of ships by Israeli naval forces." Where the commandos and their helicopters part of the Israeli Navy or a "naval force"? -- 62.78.143.66 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Israeli Sea Corps operates helicopters and a naval commando unit. MathKnight 11:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF confirm that they fired first

"T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 Saint91 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to treat the above reference, it contains a number of claims that contradict earlier accounts from both sides (and what appears in released footage) and is written in a style to be very emotive. The new claims are being attributed to the IDF. Is it possible that claims are part of an information / misinformation campaign? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This can also be said for quotes the article such as "These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us.". Emotionally charged, not descriptive and based on material released by one party Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning shots could be made by paintball guns, in which the soldiers were armed as primary non-lethal weapon. MathKnight 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the New York times is reporting this as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/world/europe/05reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world . It confirms that Israel opened fire with rubber coated metal bullets. We now have two trustworthy sources, it should be included in the article. RobMasterFunk (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

it certainly should be put in. jpost certainly doesnt have any claim to an "anti-israel bias"Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubber bullets are not live ammunition and considered as less-than-lethal weapon, so adding "IDF shot first" without clarifying this point would be missleading the reader. MathKnight 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those shot at were supposed to know they were loaded with rubber bullets? Or that some of the guns were paintball guns? Masked, armed men rappel onto a shop at dawn with guns - what are you going to think?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the IDF is using live ammunition, but sound grenades and rubber coated metal bullets.RobMasterFunk (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

how Israel treated the media

Should we take this source (IPSnews) as reliable source?

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51704

89.138.131.66 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IPS is not a western newsw source and cannot be completely trustworthy, however multiple sources allege that the IDF confiscated evidence/censored news sources so this article source is quite suitable for adding balance. If that's what editors are seeking to do, of course. 94.116.37.43 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an extremely offensive stance on who can be "completely trustworthy," a standard that would be a guaranteed source of systemic bias if it were adopted. It also misrepresents the Inter Press Service, a global news agency founded by an Italian and an Argentine in 1964. Definitely ranking as a RS.--Carwil (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Censoring of killing and blockade protest images

Why aren't these displayed in the article when there are so many from the Israeli military?

Photo of the demonstration in Gothenburg, Sweden, against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010

Photo of the demonstration in Stockholm 2010 against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza

--71.156.87.5 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid is the place. --Kslotte (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm not understanding is all IDF images belong in the main article why none of the protest images belong in this article. Should there not be one or two images to sum up the reaction?--71.156.87.5 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reactions has its own article because to main article is WP:TOOLONG. --Kslotte (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And it has five images. So we can't include even one protest photo when we include three photos giving a strictly Israeli account? How is this balanced?--71.156.87.5 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, one (not two) photo that is characteristic of international public reaction is entirely reasonable, fitting perfectly alongside WP:SUMMARY. The IP-number user is reasonable with regard to balance and NPOV. Also, a well-constructed, NPOV map of state reactions could be appropriate as well.--Carwil (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There exist now one picture to get some balance. --Kslotte (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any censorship. But adding a protest photo is a good addition. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: If we attack you and you defend yourself, you attacked us and we defend ourselves

The article is not NPOV. It heavily supports the Israeli logic of "If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you attacked us and we defend ourselves" by including many photos and views from Israel Army. I suggest it be tagged for NPOV. It is presenting a very distorted image of the incident. --94.123.198.52 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is POV. Israel navy attacked the flotilla, since it was heading into the blockade erea, and refused to stop. Some legal experts say this is an act of war by the flotilla, making it legal for the navy to stop the flotilla and arrest its people. "If we attack you" is in fact arresting, and "you defend yourself" is in fact resisting arrest. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The blockade and occupation (that there are no Israeli troops within Gaza is irrelevant) of Gaza are illegal, so the Israelis have no case. All they have is American veto power. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The legality of all of it is in question. As per the Ginormous legal section that was turned into its own article. It is not accurate to state as fact that the blockade was illegal, but the legality of the blockade was certainly in dispute. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The blockade and occupation are two different things. The is NO occupation in Gaza: there are no Israeli soldiers or IDF camps in Gaza; there are no Israeli civillians or Israeli settlements in Gaza. So, the occupation of Gaza being legal or not is irrelevant here. About the blockade - since Gaza is Hamas-controlled, and Hamas refues to recognize the state of Israel, there is an on-going war between Israel and Hamas. And in the case of a war, it is not illegal to enforce a blockade on Hamas-controlled-Gaza. So, I beg to differ with you, when you write "Israelis have no case". ShalomOlam (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

War is defined as an armed conflict between two states. Do you accept Hamas as a state? --Nevit (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion - Stratfor

There was a very good analysis in Stratfor a few days ago[18] which discusses the raid and what it means for international opinion. Basically it makes the point that the flotilla provoked Israel into a very difficult situation, and discusses the fallout especially with Turkey. It also makes the analogy, which I haven't seen anywhere else, to a situation in 1947 between the Zionists and the British, which was depicted in the movie Exodus. As this is a fairly dense work and this article doesn't yet have an obvious section on "Strategy" or "Geopolitics", I'll defer to those with more experience in I-P editing, but this would make a fine addition to the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

War Crimes?

Can the killing be classified as a war crime? i know, the victimis were civilians but maybe exactly that is a pro argument.--Severino (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is for legal people to decide, so it should not be stated so in the article. I think that the answer is no, and I can explain my POV, if you want. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to shout about "war crimes", and it's certainly not the role of Wikipedia to decide either way. There are several different points of international law that Israel has arguably breached, and the Israeli government argues that it hasn't breached any of them. Surely the role of an encylcopedic article is to explain what those points are and then to let the reader decide. Physchim62 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If Israel action will be classified as a war with NATO signatories then perhaps possibly as per legal opinions (see the moved out/separated content). For now rather not a war crime rather a common like armed robbery (the stolen laptops) and copyright violation(broadcasting movies without author/producer license). Ai 00 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The NATO policy only applies for attacks on sovereign soil. Conflicts with ships that happen to have citizens of a NATO state in international waters mean nothing. Also, this isn't in a time of war. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

passangers admitting that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish?

Someone has added this to the intro that some passengers have said that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish. I have been following the news and have never seen anything like this. Our article doesn't support this either. Please provide a reference. It would be nice to see who has made the claim; and even if this is the case (it would be interesting to see) we should not mention it as "some have said this", "some have said that" since that is giving undue weight. But let's see the source first.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I quickly browsed through the references at the end of the sentence and couldn't find anything supporting the claim. I will remove it for now, until someone shows the reference. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Death

An editor has removed the cause of death information from the lead diff, with the edit summary "If this info remains in the lead, then, for balance, I will add in the details of all the injuries of Israeli soldiers (where/how they were stabbed, what injuries they suffered". RS seem to focus on the deaths of the ships' passengers over injuries to the commandos, so I don't know what "balance" would be served by including that information in the lead. But if someone wants to make a case they could do so here rather than removing germane and well-sourced content regarding a central aspect of the event. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ths is not a IDF outfit so there is no need to balance body count like 1 isold to 1000 other . Article had to be NPOV not a "balanced". What if something like this was not balenced. Anyway how you can balance a death to scratches ? Ai 00 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, is it the custom of WP to include specific details of how people are killed in such a confrontation (e.g. shot from behind, shot multiple times) in the lead? Is it not sufficient to say that the Israeli raid/actions resulted in the death of 9 activists? If you feel these details are necessary specifically in the lead, than it would also be necessary to say in the lead that one soldier was stabbed in the abdomen, another fractured his skull, etc, [19] rather than just saying that X soldiers were injured (and the same can be said regarding details of the activist injuries as well). Regards, Kinetochore (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You could propose your idea, Kine, and if there are sources other than the sensationalistic Israeli Ynet website then it should be considered. But try to be neutral here: Are you really proposing that a principal quality of this event is injuries suffered by commandos? Is that what made this noteworthy? The RS I see all point to the deaths of the passengers over injuries to commandos. Of course cause of death is notable, RS make it so eg. "The revelation that many of those killed – eight Turks and a US-Turkish citizen – were shot in the head at close range by members of Israel's Shayetet 13 naval special forces team only exacerbated the sense of anger in many quarters, above all in Turkey." [20] Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See HERE for a previous discussion that directly related to this topic. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split off "Mavi Marmara boarding" section

I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For information, the section is 24kB long. --Kslotte (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This might come as a surprise, because I've been in favor of splitting off pretty much everything else, but I think this section is very directly relevant to the events and should remain. However I agree with you that it has gotten WAAAYYY too long. This is probably because it is so full of he-said she-said since the facts were not so easy to determine. But it definitely needs to get shortened. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the size gain is quite minimal we need to split more. I'm suggesting that boarding related sections 6, 6.1 and 6.2 (32kB) will be split. The main things should still be in the main article, but the spitted article will have all the details. --Kslotte (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section somehow is the core section of the entire article. However, as time passes, the political aspects become more notable than the details of the operation itself. I therefore think that it would be helpful to split off these details and to have a somewhat longer summary in the main article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Subdivision as proposed below is a better alternative than splitting from the article its main topic. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Subdivisioning won't reduce the article size that is WP:TOOLONG. We need to do splitting per policy. --Kslotte (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I would reduce the sections 4. Events during the preliminary stages and 5. Initial contact as well, and probably include them into the split, as they are far less important as to the core issue of the present article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The personal account of all three sections are too large. Many are also unverifiable as fact. Some relavant accounts might be worth keeping, but right now there is an overflow. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Remove the journalist accounts and personal accounts of activists on board and replace with a single account with verifiable and complete facts and references. Statements such as "the first shots that were fired were either some sort of sound grenades" and " live ammunition was fired before any Israeli soldier was on deck"" is just vague testimony as to what was fired and who fired and when it was fired. STICK TO THE KNOWN FACTS. Also that section of the activists accounts is a jumble of personal testimonies which are not connected. Many of the accounts of the activists/journalist on board contradict each other. No attempt was made to make a consistent account. Also there are some very serious accusations, for instance about withholding medical assistance. How does she know, were they dead already? was there medical personnel around? so why didn't she provide assistance? What is policy regarding printing unverified accusations? Not professional in my opinion. 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, User:Alfarber is suggesting that we should left alone the IDF account until some 663 individuals agree on a joint statement, isn't it? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect way to silence. If Israeli long before the killing agreed on version/facts of events. Waiting for testimony of death/'missing' eyewitness will lag till infinity. Ai 00 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To SALUT: you can be cynical if you want, but I didn't write that. For instance, the mention of live ammunition is probably not true and the person heard stun grenades before landing on the boat which the Israelis and others mentioned in their account. I am suggesting removing the hearsay and reducing the text into a readable consistent account. AFarber (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid incurring into WP:Synthesis, we have to rely solely on the sources (which, so far, report fragmented info about the boarding). It is not our job to judge between "hearsay" and "proved facts", no more than what the sources state. So, given that we have official statements for just one actor of the drama, and given that we'd have to aspire to represent the opposing views in a balanced manner, it is impossible not to report the account of individual witnesses. At least, as long as more clear (or unified) versions of the events emerge. SALVE, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You can still choose which accounts are self consistent and put them together and make the text readable. Also the account of Andre Abu Khalil Al-Jazeera cameraman was left out and it was clearly than the accounts selectedAFarber (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why you don't just insert the info you consider worth featuring the article? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to start consolidating and not splitting. If anything, we should not have subsections but instaed paragraphs discussing information verified by both sides or third parties while fighting the urge to put in every interesting quote we see in a new source. Splitting off what is the meat of the article is a bad idea.(no boarding means no intl reaction or story). Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we would need to start consolidating at some point. However, we should not focus on consolidating now. Even with some consolidation, splitting would still improve readability.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe splitting would lead to this article misleading the reader by not telling enough while the other article could easily become a POV fork. I think it is a shame that we are considering splitting after sources started verifying some of the IDF claims.Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any relationship between new information emerging and this debate about creating a spin-off. Also, the new information is actually confirming elements of the accounts of both sides. Take the info about the paintball shooting: IDF says it's not lethal. Activists say it caused serious injuries because it contained glass. Now if you see people screaming, possibly with red paint on their clothes, it's a reasonable assumption that you are being attacked violently. If soldiers have fired warning shots, that may lead activist to conclude that they have started shooting. You cannot easily distinguish a warning shot from live fire, especially in the dark. Now if the Israeli army acted in a way that led activists to conclude that they may have a chance to defend themselves by taking hostages, for example, some truth may emerge that partially confirms the accounts of both sides.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sections and headers

# 6 Boarding
   * 6.1 Mavi Marmara boarding
         o 6.1.1 Activists and flotilla organizers' account
         o 6.1.2 Israel's account
         o 6.1.3 Journalists' accounts
   * 6.2 Other boardings
         o 6.2.1 Sfendoni
         o 6.2.2 MS Sofia
         o 6.2.3 Challenger One
   * 6.3 Investigation for on-board weapons
   * 6.4 Fate of participants
   * 6.5 Fate of aid cargo
   * 6.6 Fate of ships

We need a new main header for 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6. These are not about "boarding". Header suggestions? --Kslotte (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with subdivision. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like post-boarding would be good? Zbase4 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Random LOL break

Did anyone else notice that the 7th ship had the website for FreeGaza.org written in HUGE letters on its deck. They must have known they'd be filmed from above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba0iXUzxu0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrospectively, the letters appear to be TOO huge to fulfill their purpose in the best possible way.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

hm whats so funny about that?--Severino (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Route of the flotilla image

The current image showing the route of the flotilla is not accurate. The larger part of the map is missing, and the routes of the ships from Greece, Ireland and the US are not displayed on the image. Mavi Marmara also called at Antalya before rendezvousing with the rest of the flotilla near Cyprus, which is not displayed on the map. I couldn't find any information on where the American ships originally sailed from, but still, I think it would be good if someone can replace this map with a more accurate one. --386-DX (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Blocked area to Map

In addition it would be useful to shade area claimed as blocked by Israel, Gaza strip water territory and Israel water territory. --Nevit (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

video fraud

IDF recorded video AFTER IDF from helicopters killed 20 Sleeping Aid Workers & Injured 100, as people fought back to stay alive, IDF started shooting videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Any sources on that?--Cerian (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF SHOT SLEEPING PEOPLE ON THE AID FLOTILLA http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/31/israel-murders-at-least-16-human-rights-activists-on-route-to-gaza-on-the-open-sea/

elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death-2207343.html

“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot.” “The Mavi Marmara was bombed right in front of our eyes. They threw the wounded into the water,” http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212103-israel-killed-more-than-9-threw-wounded-into-sea-witnesses-say.html

Why would they shoot sleeping people or would people still be sleeping unless they had the first-strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only are these sources not necessarily WP:RS but they don't address the video fraud claim in their content. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this edit add POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=366267348

The edit above seems to add POV, but I'd like other opinions. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We should just go with what the source says, and if it seems controversial then attribute and quote the source.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And I was actually somewhat suprised that the source uses similar language, but I think the best thing to do would be to just quote it and let readers form their opinion.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the source is a Guardian article. The edit does correctly quote the article, however even though The Guardian is an RS, it does have a POV. How about we use "On June 1 Witnesses to the Israeli Raid". The term witness is justified via the fact that the article is about them reporting their 'eyewitness' accounts. The term raid is justified via the article title and all of the discussion that went into choosing it. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems very point of view to me. In my opinion, it should simply be reverted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could seek another source as well for the statement?--Nosfartu (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Nosfartu Zuchinni one (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion when I've changed the wording in [this edit]. Looking again at the edit, it needs to be clarified that they have been participants of the flotilla, not necessarily in the assault (they may have just been affected by it). I'd suggest to use consistent language, so if a single reliable source describes the participants who did not die as "survivors", we do not need to use this verbatim. Also, readers of the article already know that the convoy was carrying humanitarian aid/reconstruction supplies, so we do not need to repeat this in that sentence. (The same reasoning would apply to source describing the participants as "pro-Palestinian" -- it's as obvious as "survivors", but tends to imply that the primary motivation of the participants would have been a somehow irrational attachment to the Palestinian cause.) WP:NPOV is something that does not always depend on just how we present a single bit of information, but how the article is being structured and worded generally.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds like everyone would be OK with "On June 1 Witnesses to the Israeli Raid". I'm going to change it, but if the change is controversial you have my permission to revert. Just say why in here :) Zuchinni one (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK.--Severino (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I agree.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with ambiguous "passengers" in the lead

"Passengers admitted fighting with the Israeli commandos..."

"Passengers say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding..."

These statements are ambiguous as if they could equally easily imply more than one passenger, or all of the passengers.

And both of them are true of some (plural) passengers, but are wrong in the universal sense. So, is this good enough as it is? Or should it be clarified? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length and the consensus seemed to be that passengers was the best term because using activists, terrorists, peaceful protesters, etc ... might 1) inaccurately label the people involved in specific events 2) make an assumption that everyone involved in some event belonged to the same group ie: activists. What was generally agreed was that using specific terms like activist was OK in regards to specific situations, but for the broader sense a more general term was appropriate. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Several POV issues on most recent lead edition

How should we consider these edits? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

unacceptable..--Severino (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, massive POV undiscussed changes to the intro can be reverted. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have contacted the user via his talk page and asked him not to make massive edits like this, but instead to use the discussion section to talk about what changes he feels should be made. Furthermore I don't believe the undo by DoostdarWKP should count towards his 1RR in this situation. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about 1RR. :-) Thanks for letting me know. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers :) But like I said ... this one really shouldn't count. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the editor seems to be back at the intro [21]. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Videos released by the Turkish?

Somebody had added to the intro that the videos were released by IDF and by the Turkish(!). All the videos are released by IDF. They have seized those of people onboard. No one else can possibly release a video. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They were able to transmit live during the raid.--Cerian (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not during the raid. Based on what I have read in multiple sources, the communications were disconnected at that point. Note also were are talking about videos which require a reasonable amount of bandwidth. You can of course change my mind if you provide me with a reliable source. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoing changes in the lead unless discussed first

Hi all, would anyone support unlimited undos for any content changes to the lead that are not first discussed on the talk pages? Grammar, punctuation, and other minor changes would be OK, but it's getting kind of annoying reverting the massive changes of POV editors on both sides.

Right now the lead seems pretty reasonable to me. And clearly it needs to change over time, but this might help to prevent massive changes from users who aren't even trying to be a part of the discussion.

Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to be constantly updated to reflect new information, which is coming out fast and furious. For example, statements by Israeli soldiers that their comrades were captured and their guns taken from them is now corroborated by statements from activists and journalists. It also needs to be guarded to retain old information. For example, that the initial attack on the Israeli landing party is shown on videos released both by the IDF and by Turkish TV was known from day one. However, this keeps getting deleted completely or presented as being shown only on IDF-released videos. This is presumably for POV reasons, but whatever the reason, the info is important. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)