Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

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)

Fair Use Images

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

All of the following images are problematic, as they come from press agencies and may breach our fair use policy: File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. Press agency pictures are particularly problematic if the use infringes on their commercial rights or the image is replaceable. Generally we can only use such pictures if the picture itself is the subject of analysis. Fences&Windows 12:50, 13 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.

See also

Earlier threads (newest first):

• The see also section, again
• How to call for arbitration? SS Exodus
• See also
• SS Exodus in the lead

SS EXODUS

This has been discussed ad nauseum in at least 3 different sections. It has also been subject of an edit war, repeatedly added and repeatedly rolled back.

But as of right now, there is not consensus to include it in the article. Wiki:BRD suggests that it should not be readded, until after there exists consensus. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus inclusion RFC

When the Gaza flotilla raid article was created on 31 May following the event, a subsection was created to compare it with the journey of SS Exodus. This has then been subject to discussions and an edit war, and a compromise was made to include the event as a bullet point in the See Also section. However, this has also caused endless discussions and new edit wars, which have not been able to reach a consensus. --386-DX (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See this link for all earlier discussions. Basically the arguments were:

* Opposing inclusion: 1) Comparing the events with SS Exodus is editorial and therefore not encyclopedic. 2) It is POV since arguing that the events were similar implies that the raid was criminial/immoral/unjustified/etc. 3) The events are not similar since Exodus was carrying refugees to Mandate Palestine and the flotilla was carrying aid and activists to Gaza.

* Supporting inclusion: 1) The events were similar in nature since both ships were heading towards the same region, both were carrying civilians, both were trying to break a naval blockade, both were seized in international waters, both resulted in civilian deaths, both caused strong international reactions, and both eventually resulted in significant changes (i.e. UK losing Mandate Palestine, and 2010 easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip). 2) A compromise was already made to convert it from a subsection to a bullet item in See Also. 3) Numerous reliable sources around the world have made detailed comparisons between the two events in news reports and columns; including Haaretz, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Irish Times, etc. 4) Including it as a bullet point in WP:SEEALSO is not POV, since it only means that the listed article is related to the main one. We cannot deny that there were at least some similarities, and the aspects of the relation is for the reader to decide. --386-DX (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It probably makes little difference, but I wanted to point out that the Exodus 1947 didn't result in the UK losing the Palestine Mandate. The UK had passed the situation to the UN to solve and indicated that it did not want to continue with the Mandate before the Exodus sailed. What the Exodus affected was public opinion around the world, as well as the UN committee responsible for producing the proposal put before the UN General Assembly, who were in Palestine at the time, which probably affected the contents of the proposal and the support given it in the UN. Also, the passengers on the Exodus were certainly Holocaust survivors, but were they refugees? If they were trying to flee Europe because they feared further persecution, then the answer would be yes, but, obviously the war had been over for two years when the Exodus sailed (though there had been post-war pogroms in Soviet-controlled Poland).     ←   ZScarpia   23:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The comparison is not a reaction or response to anything, it is an analysis. --386-DX (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You can call it an analysis made by journalists, a comparison made by propagandists, or a journalistic response, I don't care. The main point is that the comparison is not accepted as valid by all, and therefore any reference to it should be attributed to whoever said it. Obviously as before, you will not be able to achieve consensus on suggestion 1 or 2, so I suggested a compromise. Please think about it with an open mind. Marokwitz (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No comparison is accepted as valid by all. As mentioned; this comparison was made by numerous high-profile news sources all around the world, including one in Israel. Many editors also support its inclusion. The inclusion does not mean that either action is being endorsed, or that the two events were totally identical in every way. A compromise was already made, and it was to remove the section and change it to a bullet item in the See Also list. It might be a bit ironic of you to advise me to keep an open mind while calling it a propaganda yourself. --386-DX (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try not to misrepresent my words. I never said so. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) while calling it a propaganda yourself - uh, 386-DX, unless I'm missing something Marokwitz hasn't called it propaganda: You can call it an analysis made by journalists, a comparison made by propagandists, or a journalistic response, I don't care.

I'd be interested in seeing what third parties have to say. The proposal seems reasonable, though I continue to believe that inclusion in the "see also" section of this article would be useful in providing a perspective that transcends the usual Palestine/Israel perspectives. TFOWR 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see it makes much difference. There should be mention of this in the reactions article, it has received too much play to be ignored. As for the see also, I can't get very excited about it either way. Yes, I understand the emotional point, so did the organizers and newspeople I suspect, and I'm sure there's a point to tweak Israel about its creation story. That doesn't mean it should be included or not. Whatever editors decide is fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much my view, too. Weak support for inclusion, but equally I've removed it before now, too. TFOWR 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't love it the first time SS Exodus appeared in the article, seemed a bit of a stretch, but since then there has been significant RS linking of the two incidents. Weak support for a link in See Also, the threshold for inclusion hinges on how lean or bloated the See Also list becomes. RomaC (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the double values being shown by some commentators, the Gaza Flotilla being sneered at as propaganda or publicity stunt while presenting the SS Exodus 1947 as being solely about transporting desperate Holocaust survivors to the safety of Palestine and nothing to do with newspaper column inches, is remarkable.     ←   ZScarpia   16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the content, not the commentators. It sounds to me like many editors are open to your position.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I'll try to curb my desire to share irrelevant opinions in future.     ←   ZScarpia   16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is that it is OK for it to be mentioned that comparisons are being made to the SS Exodus 1947. A problem, though, is that none of the commentaries making the comparison (at least the ones that I have read, anyway) give anything close to a neutral or error-free and factual version of what happened in 1947. If any editor wants to include a comparison of the events, which sources are they going to use? And where should the comparison end? A very unfavourable comparison for the boarding of the Mavi Marmara can be made. Both boardings were carried out in international waters, but the Flotilla ships were 70 miles from the coast and at least one of the ships was heading west whereas the Exodus (if my memory serves correctly) was about 20 miles of the coast (a coast and surrounding waters that the British, unlike the Israelis, actually had legal authority over). There were three fatalities out of 4500 people on the Exodus (a teenager was shot in the face at close range, the mate of the ship died after being hit on the head, another passenger died after being shot in the stomach); on the Mavi Marmara, nine passengers (most of whom were shot multiple times) were killed out of a total number on the ship of about 500. Only the officers who boarded the Exodus carried firearms (pistols). Three British sailors were thrown into the sea. Most of the sailors who boarded (and even some of those who didn't) needed medical treatment afterwards. According to the historian Nicholas Bethell, the captain of the Exodus considered dangling British sailors over the side as fenders. The captain of the Mavi Marmara told people not to resist. A number of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara used bars and sticks to beat the Israeli commandos. On the Exodus, scaffolding poles and tins of food were used. In addition, a steam pipe had been rigged up and fuel oil was poured onto the deck of one of the destroyers and an attempt made to light it.     ←   ZScarpia   18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a very good argument, after all, those of the opposite opinion can come up with an exactly opposite comparison, no doubt touching on the conditions of the Exodus passengers before they boarded the vessel and their shared experience of some great act of mass murder or something like that anyway. Whatever. Let's find where we have common ground and seek to generate a version we can all live with.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My argument was about avoiding getting into a comparison. As I see it there is a problem because, in the articles I've seen where a comparison is made, none of them are neutral and there are serious errors of fact (meaning that their reliability is not good). Also, I pointed out that, for anyone supporting a comparison, it might not actually work out the way they're expecting.     ←   ZScarpia   20:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm happy for it to be mentioned that comparisons have been made to what happened to the Exodus and support Marokwitz's suggestion. What worries me is that the reliability of a lot of the commentary making the comparison that I've seen is not good and so, in my opinion, doesn't bear describing in much detail if any.     ←   ZScarpia   23:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe RomaC's compromise was ever agreed upon, as the debate just raged on for weeks unabated, and still continues.

I Strongly Oppose Inclusion Here It's blatantly POV to imply a similarity, when no real connection between the two events exists.

But I Support inclusion on reactions page No matter how POV it is, these analogies were part of the reaction, so it does merit an inclusion over there. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like Marokwitz's idea of putting it in the main reactions article (not the reactions subsection of this one). The event itself is unrelated to the boarding of the Mavi Marmara, but the coverage in RS does make it newsworthy as a reaction. "Some news organizations have compared it to the events on the SS Exodus in 1947 ..." or something like that Zuchinni one (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• There are many different ways that the events could be compared, and we can argue all day about which comparisons make more sense, but nobody argues that the events are totally and utterly dissimilar. That's why I believe that discluding it would be unfair. That's why I also think it should be included simply as a bullet item in the See Also list without further subjective analysis of the individual similarities. --386-DX (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have to weigh in in favor of inclusion, and I would go so far as to say a sentence in the article (along the lines of Zuchinni One's comment) is more appropriate than just a bullet in the see also section. In many, if not most, of the editorials covering the Gaza flotilla raid some mention was made of the SS Exodus (and also occasionally the USS Liberty), and that makes it a notable comparison whether it's a valid one or not in any editor's opinion. siafu (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in two minds. Part of me says exclude as it has nothing to do with it. But if RS have made the comparision then so can we. So on blance I would exclude if if policy did not allow its inclusion, but it does, so we keep it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"It has nothing to do with it" is a POV, just as the analysis that says the two are related is POV. Certainly, there are plenty of superficial similarities in that they both involve boats headed to the same region stopped by armed soldiers in the same area of the ocean and both purporting to be humanitarian in nature, which is to say that it's not simply ridiculous to draw an analogy. I think much of this discussion seems to be hampered by the belief that reporting a POV, or something that has been said by others, is somehow an endorsement of its validity. It is not, and the fact that this analogy has been drawn by many quite notable commentators (cited above by others) is all that is needed to justify its mention in the article. siafu (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Siafu, reporting on something that has been said is not necessarily an endorsement. However, including it in "see also" does violate NPOV because it does give our editorial rubber stamp that we believe there is a connection between these two events. Marokwitz's proposal is solid. We should report that these comparisons have been made, but it doesn't belong in the very short "responses" section of this article. It belongs in the "responses" article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You could note that I suggested a mention in a sentence in the article, not as a bullet in the see also. More importantly, however, you are incorrect in asserting that it puts our editorial rubber stamp on the connection; the only thing receiving the editorial "rubber stamp" is the fact that it has been suggested by notable commentators. This latter happens to be true, so it should be uncontroversial to include it. siafu (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Including something in the See Also is not an endorsement, it only means that the article is related. See WP:SEEALSO. The analysis of the political connections between the two events would be editorial; but the similarities themselves, as repeatedly detailed above, are material. Nobody denies that both journeys were being made towards the same region, with passengers trying to break a naval blockade, had deadly interventions, which resulted in strong reactions, and subsequent significant changes. The presence of these multiple solid similarities alone should be enough to include it in See Also. The fact that detailed comparisons between the two events were made by RS all around the world only proves the existence of similarities even further. My main reason to include it there is not to point out that the events were compared by some people, it is because the two events indeed do have lots of common points. --386-DX (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe it should go into the see also section of the reactions article instead of this one, because everyone seems to agree that the events are dissimilar and that the only reason for inclusion is the reactions from some RS that mentioned it. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any agreement at all on the similarity or dissimilarity of the events, and more importantly, our opinions on that matter are simply irrelevant. The commentary made by major news services making this connection is the source of its notable; its sheer prominence merits its inclusion in this article. siafu (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

These were different events which took place at different times. There are of course differences between them. There are always differences between any two events. Listing the article in See Also would not mean that they are the same in nature every way one can think of. Worldwide RS coverage proves that there are some significant similarities. What those are specifically is not important for the purpose of this discussion. In addition, nobody disputes at least the factual common points I listed above. For what it's worth, I would also have no problems with the inclusion of SS Struma or Karina A Affair on the same list. --386-DX (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The opposer's argue that making the link is not useful to the reader without the context of the comparison being made, and implies that Wikipedia editorially endorses the comparison. My proposal above keeps the link, and also explains the comparison in more depth according to the reliable sources - we can have a full paragraph about that. This is more prominent and gives due weight to the prominence of the comparisons that were made by journalists and other responders, as well as giving opportunity to describe the criticism of the comparison, without editorially endorsing any of them. It is much more useful to the reader that way, and is policy compliant. I really do not understand why you are so much against it. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You likely don't understand why I am "so much against it" because I am not, in fact, so much against it. I am simply offering my opinion, which is that because the See Also section presents without qualification, it would be more useful to include it in the responses section (and in more depth in the responses article) because it is so prominent and this allows some minor qualification on the point here in this article so as to avoid the appearance of endorsement or rejection. An additional rationale for this is the fact that casual reader is not necessarily likely to follow the link to the responses article, but can this way still be presented with an NPOV description. That's it. I'm also not willing to joining 386-DX or Zuchinni one in either of their competing claims because both seem to think that the actual validity of the comparison, one way or the other, is what should inform our decision on inclusion. As I have said before, this is irrelevant-- I do even have my own opinion on this matter which I'm choosing to keep to myself because wikipedia is not a forum-- and the prominence (i.e., notability) of the RS's which have made this comparison is the important factor in determining inclusion versus omission. siafu (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The similarity and the RS coverages/analyses of the similarity are two different things. If you want to mention the RS coverages, you can surely do that in the Reactions article. I am against removing it from See Also because the reason for listing it there is not to mention that some news sources compared the two events. It is to point out that the two events were indeed similar; i.e. both were passenger ships heading towards Palestine to break a naval blockade and were stopped in international waters with deadly force resulting in strong international criticism and significant political changes. Nobody here, including you, denies these similarities. Removing it would therefore be unfair. Your allegation that merely listing Exodus in See Also would be a political endorsement is baseless, and it is nothing more than your opinion. --386-DX (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all opinion. The reason it could be interpreted as an endorsement is because it would be presented in a purely unqualified way: the reader would see nothing but a link to SS Exodus with no indication of why that link is there. If it's in the prose, some qualification can be made. You are also unaware of what my personal opinion is, so leave that out please. siafu (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone list the sources please? Once we know what the sources are, we can come to a consensus about their reliability and whether their contents are worth detailing in the article.     ←   ZScarpia   23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few: Haaretz BBC The Guardian Irish Times New York Times Sydney Morning Herald The News International --386-DX (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this still dragging on and why are certain editors so adamant about its inclusion? Simple fix is putting it in the prose then there doesn't have to be any dispute.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus used to have its own section, which was then moved to the lead, which was then moved to See Also. I believe that is for the best since putting it in the prose would make it editorial depending on how it is phrased. Listing it in See Also is objective since it leaves the comparisons up to the reader. --386-DX (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised. Its own section and the lead are both more weight than it deserves. Including it in the see also is just as editorial but at least in the reactions or another section it can be explained why it was compared.Cptnono (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Explaining how they are similar and not similar would be purely editorial. Listing it in the See Also on the other hand, would not put any kind of comparison over another. --386-DX (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons explained a couple weeks ago. If sources are comparing any of those then explain it in the reactions section or at the reactions article.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see how adding additional unexplained links to unrelated events would be helpful to resolve the policy based objections mentioned earlier. 1 - EDITORIAL: Making unexplained connections to events that are not directly related to the raid is editorializing. If it has been compared by reliable sources, explain the comparison in prose. 2- NPOV: The flotilla supporters strongly object to comparing the flotilla to Karine A which was a vessel carrying tons of rockets, bombs and other contraband. And Israel supporters will likewise object to comparing the flotilla to Struma, which is a horrifying story, Struma was an immigrant ship sunk by a soviet torpedo, with all 1,000 or so civilians on board killed, after being towed to mid-sea by the Turkish, with an inoperable engine. Controversial topics should be handled with extra care. Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Any incident which reliable sources related to this one should be considered for inclusion in the reactions article, if compared in enough sources to satisfy WP:UNDUE. Comparing an event to an unrelated event is one way to react to the event. There seems to be pretty good support for Marokwitz's suggestion above to include mention of any cases like this in the prose of the reactions article (properly referenced, of course), and I would support Marokwitz's proposal. ← George ^talk 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A critique of the sources provided by 386-DX on July 6:

• Haaretz: An article by Yossi Melman which briefly mentions the Exodus 1947, claiming that Hamas has the same motivations for violently breaking the blockade of Gaza as the Jewish leaders had in breaking the British blockade in 1947. Melman says that the Israelis should not have boarded the Marmara, causing a violent confrontation, but simply disabled it or acted in the way they did in several incidents in the past, citing the sabotaging of The Return and an incident during Olmert's premiership when a lone ship was allowed through to Gaza. It's interesting that Melman states as a fact that the Israelis sent Mossad agents and Naval commandos to Cyprus to sabotage The Return. As far as I know, Israel has never acknowledged doing so and it has never been proved that they did (see the Sabotage section of the current version of the article). It's also interesting that Melman should state as a fact that Hamas was behind the flotilla. In relation to the Exodus 1947 Melman says that the British Mandate authorities had imposed a blockade on the shores of the land of Israel. It would be good to know what Melman means by the land of Israel (perhaps Eretz Israel?) and why he didn't just use a term like Mandate Palestine, a more precise term for the territory which the British were actually governing; obviously the State of Israel didn't exist at the time.

• BBC: Paul Reynolds mentions the Exodus 1947 briefly at the end of an article asking questions about why the boarding of the Mavi Marmara resulted in deaths. He says that the Israelis (understandably) totally underestimated the resistance that the boarding would be met by and claims that the British did the same in 1947. Anybody who knows anything about the Exodus 1947 would know that that is a pretty silly claim to make. Firstly, violent resistance had been met on previous boardings. Secondly, the British boarding teams had trained beforehand to meet a violent confrontation on the Exodus 1947. Thirdly, it could be readily seen that the Exodus had been prepared beforehand to resist a boarding. Reynolds' statement that the Exodus 1947 boarding did much to ... increase support for a Jewish state is highly justified, though.

• The Guardian: A comment piece, whose thesis is that Israel's position on blockading a whole people is not sustainable, by Richard Irvine in which the Exodus 1947 features strongly. There is an error in the second sentence. Irvine says that the Royal Navy stopped, then boarded, the Exodus 1947; in fact the boarding was done while the Exodus 1947 was zig-zagging at high speed. There is an ambiguity in the second paragraph which could be read as stating that three deaths were caused as the passengers were removed from the Exodus 1947. In the penultimate paragraph, the death-toll on the Mavi Marmara is overestimated.

• Irish Times: Fintan O'Toole's thesis is that, because of the Exodus 1947, Israel should have been alive to the disastrous publicity that resulted from storming the Mavi Marmara. In describing the Exodus 1947 story, he has adopted the Haganah version. Firstly, he says that the British destroyers rammed the Exodus, something that there were several good reasons that they wouldn't have done. Firstly, the Exodus had a six inch wide iron-coated rubbing strake running right round her six feet above the waterline which would have severely damaged the sides of lightly-built destroyers. Secondly, the Exodus had no internal subdivisions, so would probably have sunk very rapidly if rammed or even caused to heel over. All the destroyer captains had been warned to avoid causing such an accident to happen. At one stage there was an accidental collision. The Exodus, which was zig-zagging at high speed, slowed quickly when one of the destroyers was coming alongside, causing a boarding gantry to become entangled. In manoeuvring to disentangle the gantry the destroyer's bows swung round and hit the Exodus. O'Toole says that the Royal Navy almost certainly lied when it claimed that some of the crew of the Exodus were armed (presumably he means with guns, though he doesn't make that clear). He also says that the Navy made false claims in order to justify the three deaths caused. The three deaths were that of the mate, who was clubbed on the head when he refused to give up the wheel, a fifteen-year-old, who was shot in the face (he was hiding behind a lifeboat at the time), and a passenger who bled to death after being shot in the stomach. The reason given for shooting the fifteen-year-old (at point blank range) was that he was holding an axe. Presumably, the false claim charge relates to the latter two. In neither case does he explain the reasons behind his statement. My best guess is that he was simply repeating what he read in other accounts which believed the Haganah version. The US press at the time, naturally, put great faith in the statements of the American crew members, especially secret Haganah member and Methodist minister John Grauel, that there had been no firearms on board the Exodus. Opposed to that, British historian Nicholas Bethell wrote that an American crewman fired a rifle threw a hole which had been hacked in the roof of the British-occupied wheelhouse. He didn't explain how he knew that it was an American seaman who was involved. From the account, it appears that Grauel was in his cabin at the time and therefore not a witness to what was happening on deck. It is one of the interesting common features that has not be commented on. The Israeli commandos also said that they were fired on and have been widely disbelieved.

• New York Times: A number of comparisons are made, the main and most explicit ones being that in both cases the passengers were filmed leaving the ships in a poor condition and that, afterwards, there was a controversy over whether the deaths were justified. In the third paragraph the article says that the Royal Navy was enforcing a ban on Jewish immigration. There wasn't a ban on Jewish immigration. There was a restriction in the numbers of permits issued. To force a change, of course, the Haganah and Irgun mounted campaigns of illegal immigration, the ships of which the Navy was trying to intercept. In the passage quoted from Margalit Fox, there are a number of errors. Again, it is, at the very least, misleading to say that the destroyers rammed the Exodus. The sailors who boarded did so from special gantries which were mounted high up in the destroyers. The sailors on the deck of the destroyers were not trying to board the Exodus but to prevent passengers on the Exodus setting fire to fuel oil which had been sprayed there. The Exodus was not towed to Haifa, but was taken there under its own steam, steered by a member of the Exodus's crew. The article links to one from 1947 which apparently reported John Grauel's claims that the passengers' weapons were potatoes and canned food. Sounds as though he forgot to mention the steam pipe, fuel oil, scaffolding poles, axe and anything else that came to hand.

• Sydney Morning Herald: I can't see any errors here except that it implies that the Royal Navy stopped the Exodus before boarding it.

• The News International: The Exodus is mentioned briefly. I think that there is one error: international outrage did not force the British to relinquish its Mandate; it had already indicated to the UN that it wanted to withdraw from the Mandate. The UN sent the UNSCOP committee to Palestine in order to produce recommendations for what should be done with the territory. The Exodus was timed to coincide with the presence of the UNSCOP committee.

I'll leave editors to form their own opinions about the articles' reliability and how important the errors are. I would say that the articles do not make all the comparisons between the Exodus and Flotilla incidents that have been listed above and therefore cannot be used as sources to justify everything in the list.     ←   ZScarpia   00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you took the time to write the comment above with all those personal notes and claims. This is not a place to review the cited articles or debate the politics. See WP:FORUM. As explained above; the reason those articles were mentioned was to point out the notability and relevance of the connection. --386-DX (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

Guys, let's not present Israeli military claims as the truth, like it was done in the "boarding" chapter: it said Israeli military entered the ship with "paintball guns"; however, if you actually read the source, you will not that it is the Israeli military who says this, yet, this attribution was missing. To be honest, to me "paintball guns" sounds more like a cynical joke by the Israeli military than reality. Lesswealth (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Joke or no, sourced to the IDF or not, was it factual (and verifiable from reliable sources other than the IDF) - or is this a proven IDF fabrication? If it's a proven fabrication sourced to the IDF, then yes, we shouldn't consider them reliable sources. On the other hand, if the initial force was armed with paint-ball guns, as absurd as that sounds, then it's an indication that the IDF is pretty reliable, if not ridiculous. Rklawton (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the paintball guns were pretty much confirmed by all the RS and POV publications on both sides of the issue. The question is not whether or not they had paintball guns, but what else they used, how soon they started to use deadly force, and whether or not the passengers resisted with deadly force of their own. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Less than lethal weapons have been verified by the activists and press. We can even verify it ourselves in the images (although it is OR). This along with the fighting back with more than fists by the activists have been confirmed by both sides and independent media. Editors need to stop disregarding that since just because they don't like it.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Many activists testimonies (including those of numerous international passengers) state that Israel was using plastic bullets and possibly live ammo even before boarding the ships. In addition to paintball guns; tasers, dogs, plastic bullets were used as well. The soldiers also had sidearms with real bullets. Autopsy reports confirm that some people were shot from directly above their heads. In light of all these; saying that "the soldiers boarded the ships with paintball guns" would be very much POV. --386-DX (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Who cares where they were shot from? Fine, attribute it and make it clear if that is your primary concern. "Reports from activists said that commandos opened fire before boarding. Israel says that light resistance was expected and boarded with non-lethal weapons. They used their sidearms after being attacked by passengers wielding iron bars, knives and other makeshift weapons." This has all been sourced but keeps on being removed for whatever reason. And the last line doesn't need to be attributed since it has been confirmed by all parties and there were dead bodies.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert Lesswealth's edit there seems to be consensus here and its been a few days. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the text since the source given at the end of the line clearly said that this view is the opinion of the Israeli military. Unless someone points out another, non-Isreali source, which says that they had paintball guns, I'm keeping to my opinion. Lesswealth (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lesswealth, take a look at the archives and at the sources. The use of paintball guns is undisputed. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Israel ... boarded with non-lethal weapons. They used their sidearms after being attacked by passengers wielding iron bars, knives and other makeshift weapons." Saying commandos "boarded with non-lethal weapons" and marginalizing the guns which fired the bullets that killed and injured scores is an attempt to paint events in the hues of hasbara. Some sources say the commandos boarded with illustrated hit lists, shall we include that? RomaC ^TALK 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

New information

I have no expertise in this, I don't know why I am suggesting things I read so please don't see this as an attack but because the Israeli point of view is clearly backed by video proof perhaps it should be treated a little bit more evenly? I also think this page is far too long, and I also found this which is why I read the Wikipedia Article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/1/Gaza-Freedom-Flotilla-aid-included-expired/

Perhaps that should be added in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel's video includes only a minute of the event, without showing what happened before or after the video was shot. Israel also confiscated all images and videos of the event except the very few activists managed to smuggle. Even if it were not so, that is no reason to prefer the Israeli version of the events. The page is not long in relevance to the context and related information of the event. This was already discussed before. --386-DX (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit

There was a pretty large edit recently that added a lot of POV and where the only text in the comments section was "comments". There were no sources added, but a lot of incorrect information was inserted.

Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=372826625&oldid=372524060

I am reverting this edit because of the POV and inaccuracies introduced. Please comment here. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If we just can go through each of the edits separately, one by one. The Israel categorically refused to allow international independent inquiry commission. Israel since the beginning of the incident rejected any calls for possible int. commission, without discussing such calls in principle, so here where word categorically comes from. But if there is a need for a source, no problem.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dogan's citizenship

Re recent edits changing Dogan's citizenship, sources seem to differ -- some say "American" and some "Turkish-American" dual citizenship. This source addresses the distinction: "The ninth victim was an American teenager, 19-year-old Furkan Dogan. Dogan has usually been described in the media as either a Turk or a dual Turkish-American citizen, but in fact carried only an American passport with a Turkish residency stamp. Furkan’s father, Professor Ahmet Dogan, believes that the press is portraying his son as either a dual national or a Turkish citizen in an effort to “cover up” the reality of his son’s death." RomaC ^TALK 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that so many sources say otherwise makes it difficult. I would suggest something along the lines of "variously described as American with Turkish residency or having dual American-Turkish citizenship". We cannot be expected to know the vagaries of citizenship law, and what passport Dogan chose to carry is not determinative.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. One way of approaching this is to include only information that can be absolutely verified. As far as I can see there are no sources saying that Dogan was not an American citizen, so we would not be getting anything wrong if we simply said he was American. RomaC ^TALK 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmph. I'm not so sure. Certainly he has birthright American citizenship, but there is more to it than that. I think that to be neutral here we should put additional information. And btw, he should be referred to as a 19-year-old if his age is mentioned, not as a teenager. Given the POV that the oilprice article displays, I would be more content with high-quality news sources to explain Dogan's citizenship status.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree "19-year-old" is better than "teenager". CSM also semi-addresses the uncertainty on whether Dogan also had Turkish citizenship here, that seems sufficient for the time being, until a better source gets the facts straight. How to note, with brevity, the fact that he was American and the possibility that he also had Turkish citizenship is a bit of challenge. I'll have a crack at it and post here later if nobody else has. RomaC ^TALK 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The CSM says that Dogan was a dual citizen and that the State Department confirmed it. I notice later in the article it says "apparent" dual-citizen, but I have not seen any news source that denies he was a dual citizen. I am not editing the article, I am merely here to help conciliate, but I really don't think there is any uncertainty here. If his parent was Turkish, he is Turkish. I would suggest posting and allowing discussion before making the alteration, as this has the potential for contention.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Checked through sources, about half say just "American" and half say "dual" (less common), or "Turkish-American." However sometimes in the US this construction (such as "Irish-American") can be used even when the person does not hold, for example, Irish citizenship. Also as Dugan was born in the US it is quite possible he never exercised his right to obtain Turkish citizenship. So what we do know is that he was American and lived in Turkey. Suggest "American resident of Turkey" because this is a) concise; b) correct. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 02:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actual source International Relations and Security Network (ISN) http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?id=118135&lng=en Dr John CK Daly is a non-resident Fellow at John Hopkins Central Asia-Caucasus Institute in Washington, DC.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/furkan-dogan-us-citizen-k_n_599173.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/meta/search/imageDetail?format=plain&source=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FInternational%2F1b2dda9c-62e8-4555-a778-5e054a963e8e
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/03/2010-06-03_american_citizen_among_dead_in_botched_israeli_raid_of_gazabound_flotilla.html
• http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0603/Israeli-raid-on-Gaza-Freedom-Flotilla-killed-US-citizen-Furkan-Dogan
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlElXOJV4CA&feature=player_embedded

Furkan Dogan was an American citizen and Turkish permanent resident the article says. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kasalaan, which source of the four reliable sources you have posted (one is merely a photo and caption) says he is a Turkish permanent resident? And RomaC, please review WP:SYNTH. You are guessing that a US immigrant to Turkey might be called "Turkish-American", there does not appear to be substantiation for that. And as for the Dogan article, we are not our own source. Under Turkish nationality law, Dogan is a Turk. Pure and simple. He is the son of a Turk so he is a Turk. All reliable sources which address the issue say he is a dual citizen. And, Kasaalan, what another Wikipedia article says really doesn't matter, especially as I looked at the sources over there and couldn't find one which made him out to be a permanent resident ... --Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a nice one. Not only has the Dogan as dual citizen, but the PM of Turkey calls him Turkish.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Several" activists

Made an edit to remove weaselly "several" activists on board said that the IDF opened fire on the ship before boarding. because the sources do not say "several" activists, one says "hundreds" and others don't qualify. Not shocked that it was summarily reverted to reinsert "several" (and marginalize the activists' account of events). Meanwhile we have in the previous sentence "Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered" with no similar qualification on the number of commandos who said this. Why qualify activists and not commandos? RomaC ^TALK 15:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is indeed a problem across the project. If it is being used to summarize, I see no great problem. If it is being used to try to impart a POV (for example "Most Americans" when the poll was 53-47 percent of a 300 person smaple) is a bit more dicey. I think we do the best we can here and if there is a problem, seek alternative language. Fortunately, the ruckus here seems to be calming down.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. On this phrasing, I wonder what some editors here would say if I edited in "some" Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered? The general "soldiers said X" and "activists said Y" seems to reflect both sides while avoiding a selective qualification that might introduce a POV. RomaC ^TALK 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would do it in both cases, or neither. If you leave it for one, there may be an implication there that carries POV. Make sure you don't imply that this is a minority view among either group, please. Perhaps one way is to say "several soldiers have stated" rather than "several soldiers stated".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing is that the three cited sources don't say "several activists/soldiers" for either side's version of events, neither do they say "all activists/soldiers." So editing in "several" as a qualification on one side only did seem a POV move. I support leaving out such weaselly qualifications. Another option is using what the source says: "Hundreds of activists from the Free Gaza aid Flotilla have testified that they came under attack by Israeli soldiers before their feet even touched the deck." In any case, "several" should go, but as I mentioned initially, when I removed that qualification an editor replaced it right away. RomaC ^TALK 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be very interested in knowing what court they "testified" in. However, I agree, ditch the weaselly qualifiers, and make sure that the verbs you use for what the various positions are do not carry more of a connotation of belief in one case than in the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Although American Heritage also defines "testify" as "To make a statement based on personal knowledge", ie. not necessarily to or before a court, I agree the word carries that connotation and we should leave it out and also leave out the selective and unsupported "several". Also agree that both sides' action verbs should be "said" as in the version that I'd edited, which only removed "several" per the above. Here's the diff could you consider doing the revert? I'm thinking to stick to Talk pages for awhile. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of the people on the ship below deck when the Israelis boarded? Zuchinni one (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct but that's original research. Let's consider how "several/some" qualifications might affect the lead alone if uniformly applied:

• Activists aboard the flotilla's largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces --> Some activists aboard the flotilla's largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with some Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces"
• Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered --> Some Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered.
• Et cetera

Shall we do the above edits? The fact is that "several activists" does not appear in any of the cited sources. However, if we want a qualification from a source, that would be "hundreds". Shall we use the supported "hundreds of activists" or would we be better to remove the unsupported "several activists" and not selectively qualify? Which do you prefer? RomaC ^TALK 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If anything it is "many" not several. "Free Gaza Movement lawyer Iyad Habiballah told Al Jazeera news that hundreds of the freed activists testified commandos began shooting as they absailed down ropes from helicopters."[1] I expect other sources to contradict it (Free Gaza is good at PR) but unless these are provided "several" is not enough.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not "many" (OR) but "hundreds" per the source. Why don't you make the change, Cpt? RomaC ^TALK 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a quote of 'hundreds' from one source which is known to have a strong POV fits the WP:NPOV standard. There is no evidence that 'hundreds' of people could even have been eyewitnesses above deck. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the source that says "several"? RomaC ^TALK 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did I ever support using 'several'? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Several" is currently in the article, I took it out and was summarily reverted. So, what do you support? And what is the "source which is known to have a strong POV", I don't understand that. RomaC ^TALK 02:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At least a few argued that, so some activists would be NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "Terrorist" was coined by the British media in 1947 in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine.

Three of the dead Turkish men had martyrdom photos

During the funeral in Turkey , which was recorded by news outlets, an broadcasted in USA, at least 3 of the dead Turkish men had martyrdom photos pasted to the front of their coffins that had been taken while they were living. This clearly illustrates that they had bad intentions when arriving in Gaza. Peace activists don't make martyrdom pictures. The photos show the men wearing terrorist scarves and colors of Hamas. Why aren't these pictures posted here? What happened to the newspaper interviews of the 3 men in which they expressed their wishes to die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.249.226.109 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

well there is a perfect explanation as to why these pictures are not shown, and other useful information not mentioned. It's because this article is clearly controlled by an anti-Israeli majority (a quick read through the discussion will prove that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamas "rant"

This recently reverted[2] edit introduces something that is very related and assists the reader in understanding the topic. It might be possible to tone down but overall should be mentioned. Is sourced just fine.Cptnono (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's such a helpful addition have your boy Agada come here to propose and discuss it, he's made 30 hasbara edits to the article in the last two weeks without dropping by Talk once. RomaC ^TALK 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I brought it to talk so if you have reason for its removal feel free to discuss it.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well complaining about Agada (our interaction has not been much so he isn't my slave or buddy although he does seem like a decent dude) and leaving snide remarks on my talk page without discussing the issue is enough for me to feel comfortable reverting.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course you feel comfortable, more and more editors feel the proper descriptors are "Israeli government" on the east of the wall, and "Islamist militants Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and considered a terrorist organization by the United States etc." on the west side of the wall sorry, "peace fence". Partisan activity in this topic area is becoming even more extreme, concerted and loathsome. RomaC ^TALK 02:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are getting a little off topic. Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In typical fashion, Nableezy reverted even though it could have easily been discussed here more. There is an ongoing discussion but he used an edit summary "pov drivel, define "destruction of Israel" and this point is made multiple times in the article". We don't need to define it. Israel has defended itself by relying on that argument. We are simply acknowledging their claimed reasoning. We could give half their claimed reasoning if that would be less POV drivel.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock, the "pov drivel" is the "committed to the destruction of Israel". I was not saying to define "destruction of Israel" in the text, I was saying that it is used in such a broad fashion that it is a meaningless phrase. The argument Israel has relied on is that it needs to stop weapons from reaching Hamas. And that point is in fact made in several places in the article. And if you recall, you re-reverted a "bold" addition when it could have easily been discussed here more. There was an ongoing discussion and you choose to re-revert because an editor left a supposedly "snide" remark on your talk page. Bye. nableezy - 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the third time you have referred to me as "Sherlock". Don't do that anymore. And RomaC refused to talk about the issue so I'm not going to feel bad for reverting.

Would "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop vessels from travelling to Gaza since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas"[3] be acceptable? Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because that is a defense of the blockade, not the "raid". That goes in the background section, which it already is in. And I call you Sherlock because you seem to have an incredible knack for going through my contributions. But as you wish. nableezy - 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The source words it as if it is the defense for the raid. Is the source not correct or is it misleading? Blockade or this specific flotilla, shouldn't it be mentioned with a single line in the lead if it is discussed in detail throughout the article? WP:LEAD and proper summary. I really don't see how dropping the destruction bit would not be a good fix.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The defense of the raid boils down to the claim that it was needed to enforce the blockade. The defense for the blockade is that it is needed to prevent arms from reaching Hamas. The source is conflating these two things. nableezy - 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) If it worded correctly then yes, the Israeli defense of the blockade could be mentioned in the lead. Also, be careful with directly copying material from a non-free use source. The sentences used were directly copied from the source, which is small enough that copying these two sentences word for word could arguably be construed as a copyvio, and if not it was straightforward plagiarism. nableezy - 03:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A single line "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop vessels from travelling to Gaza since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas" should be OK copyright wise. Assuming that is correct, is placement in the section the next hurdle? The blockade is mentioned in the first and second paragraphs so somewhere next to or added to those lines looks like a possibility.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that single line would probably be okay as far as copyright goes, but what you re-added to the article was more than that. But to the point, that is not worded accurately. Israel has defended itself for what with that logic? Where it was placed implies that this is a defense of the actual raid, not the blockade. After a mention of the blockade a clause could be inserted saying ", which Israel has defended as necessary to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas". A better source for that would be this which is not as confused as the AFP is in this case. nableezy - 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to defend the original inclusion by the other editor since we have already gone over that. If that line is more appropriate in an already existing line discussing the blockade then so be it. Which one though?Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop Gaza-bound vessels since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas, an Islamist movement committed to the destruction of Israel which controls Gaza Strip." "an Islamist movement committed to the destruction of Israel which controls Gaza Strip" part might or might not be unnecessary, but "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop Gaza-bound vessels since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas" part is useful. On the other hand expansion of Israeli settlements, House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Effects of the Gaza War are also closely related to the background of the conflict. So adding as see also. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That edit was questionable but we are discussing how to adress the line and not the see alsos so this does not need to be sidetracked. The carrying of weapons bit was even discussed a few weeks ago (too many archives!). I think I have a solution per the above chit chatting but need to do some tinkering before it is ready to go up. Any other thoughts on it would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IDF "poison captive with arsenic" claim

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=9142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.178.19 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)