Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

UN-backed claims of illegality - absolutely insufficient visibility.

Given the authoritive source and the heavy weight of the statement, the UN-based statement about the illegality of the raid should be acknowledged in the opening paragraphs (e.g., "in Sept. 2010, an Independent United Commission has concluded that the Israeli raid has been executed in violation of applicable Internatational Law", after the raid description.

The illegality determined nder the UN investigation also outweighs any generic or partisan legal opinion. It should be the first opening statement of the "Legal Assessment". Burying it among opinion of random observers taken here and there months ago is absolutely inappropriate.

Sources (dozens) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-Flotilla.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.82 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the second statement (well, sort of), not with the first. The reason I don't agree with the first is that this isn't the UN fact-finding mission that all the buzz has been about. This is a wrongdoing-finding commission. Its mandate was too narrow and one-sided to produce results worth including in the lead, and even the least scrupulous of readings reveals a clear bias. But, most importantly, the media attention devoted to this report has been very small, especially when compared with THE UN report (with a capital 'U')--the one to be submitted to the Secretary-General, that is yet to have come out. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with unsigned. Regarding Saepe's points, media visibility is not a factor we need to worry about. When the other UN report is issued we should add its relevant findings, but that too is irrelevant to the issue of including the UN report that was issued. I added some of its findings, about "execution" of passnegers but it was removed without adequate objection based on WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Autopsy reports

I've gone on a quest to find the full autopsy reports, but all I've found is articles that focus on their most sensational aspects. The only exception to this is a report on the IHH website that appears to summarize the autopsies in greater detail. Although I fear some editors may post volumes of unneeded information from this source, I highly encourage all editors to read it. One thing that immediately caught my eye, is that those who performed the autopsies acknowledged that they could not evaluate the range at which activists were shot. The write the following:

"Forensic Institute Physical Examination Board stated that all nine bodies had been washed before being brought to Turkey and their clothes were either blood-soaked or otherwise unfit for analysis, making it impossible to reach a conclusion on the ranges of most shots."

"No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined."

"According to the report most of the martyrs were shot from above with a high angle."

As the article is currently written, most activists were shot at close range. But the autopsies could not have determined this, though they are cited as such. This would not so much surprise me, were it not for the fact that this information is coming from the IHH itself, not the Israeli government or media. I think the next logical step is to find the original autopsy reports, though I have not been able to do this myself. Does anyone know where to find them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That conflicts heavily with other reports which make clear statement of the distances, but this report does offer the new outlook that the people seemed to have been shot from above, as in some of the activist statements that say that shooting happened from the helicopters. I think that should be included, definitely, and maybe you should mention that there are conflicting reports over the distance the shootings happened from. If they do indeed conclude that the bullets entered the people at a high angle (meaning steep) than this would be an important piece of information to include. ValenShephard (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Might have been shot from helicopters, or might have been shot from a higher part of a ship to a lower. We don't really know. But it sure means they weren't shot at close range in the back of the head.

You're right that this contradicts a lot of our sources, and that's what's strange about this. This information isn't found in Israeli media or government sources, but on the IHH website.

This source can be mentioned, but the crucial thing here is to find the original reports. Do you know where we might find them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can't say "which shows they were shot from helicopters" or something, that would be OR, but we can mention that this report says they were shot at steep angles, which readers can make their own conclusion from. It defintely should be mentioned, especially because it conflicts, it adds another layer to the story for readers to get an understanding of the event by. I don't know how to find the reports. ValenShephard (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

About finding the original reports, I don't think that is the best way to go. The original reports will be primary sources, and its better to use sources, as the article does now, which talk about these primary sources, like newspaper articles. But we can still include some information from them if it seems important, like the steep angle of shots. ValenShephard (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are the bread and butter of articles, but primary sources are crucial for reviewing the secondary ones. Yes, the angles are certainly relevant information. I'm trying to figure out how to put this information into the article in a way that makes sense. Right now, the section titled "Deaths" should probably be retitled "Autopsy reports," and then we can place that information there. Much of the section needs to be cut anyways. What are your thoughts on this proposal? For certain, we need to find the original reports. It seems fishy to me that they're not available anywhere. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is rare that autopsy reports are published online, afterall, this is very sensitive medical information, it can't usually (and many people such as family of victims) oppose it being released to the public. Nothing fishy about it. I dont think the title needs changing, the autopsy reports are 'part' of the deaths section. ValenShephard (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not part of the death section, they are the entire death section. It's a mislabeled section.

As far as them being published online, I see your point. But you don't find it strange that no other source but the IHH discussed the fact that the range couldn't be determined, when so many claims were made about the range? The IHH probably got ahold of the reports from its members, and published what it wanted to. There could still be still information on those reports we haven't seen. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think that no other source mentioned that, its not our place to offer a judgement, just state the facts from reliable sources. The name should stay, it deals with the death of the activists, thats why its called "deaths". ValenShephard (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My point isn't that the source doesn't belong, but that we should make an effort to find the primary source, so our judgment is actually crucial.

Let me approach the name issue differently: would you oppose renaming the section "Autopsy reports," and putting the death and injury figures in the "Casualty" section? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Range couldn't be established on most shots, not all shots. Where they give a range I assume that's one of the times they could tell. Gunshot residue isn't the only way to establish range: gunpowder stippling is one possible determinant which would have been present on uncovered flesh (like heads) hit at close range so that might be where the numbers come from.

I've looked high and low for a copy of the report. It would be fantastic to find the primary source but I don't think our hands our tied without it. Second hand reports of autopsy results are pretty standard, for the reasons Valen mentions. I'm not sure I see the problem in having the autopsy results as the bulk of the "Deaths" section, what am I missing? Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You aren't missing anything, I think you are pretty spot on. I think we should include the information the user found, that alot of the shots came in at steep angles, from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Maybe the report makes a conclusion itself? If it says something like "which means...." we should include that too. ValenShephard (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Goldstone, making a "Deaths" section 85% of which is about the autopsies leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think it would make much more sense to call such a section "Autopsy reports." If I continue to be in the minority, this isn't something I'll push very hard, but I just think the autopsy reports are notable enough to have their own section, whereas nothing else in the "Deaths" section is.

@Anonymous (editor who made unsigned comment), the source says, ""No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined." That's highly inclusive verbiage. It doesn't say "most," nor does it say "therefore the shooting distance had to be determined by other means. Within the source itself, only a single body has the shooting range named, and that's Dogan.

@Valen, I have to take a short break, but will then pursue these edits. I hope they will be to your satisfaction. Either way, please discuss so that we can make the article better. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The deaths section deals with the deaths. If it deals with the deaths through the medium of autopsy reports, that doesn't change the fact it is the section dealing with the deaths. It could be dealing with the deaths through any medium, through descriptions, video, etc, but that wouldnt change that the section is dealing with the deaths. ValenShephard (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't push the "death" vs. "autopsies" thing. It's not a big deal. Other than that, are we all happy with how this section is written now?

I should note that I'm not 100% happy, because I think we should get rid of the "2 to 14 cm" account, which must refer to Dogan, who is mentioned immediately thereafter. However, I know that the chances of getting consensus on this are slim. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the source doesn't make a direct reference to Dogan, we cannot say what must or musn't be. If we arent sure, we don't guess. We just leave it to be 'general', in line with the source. ValenShephard (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that, with the information we currently have, we can't make any conclusion about who the "one person" is. This sort of situation is a perfect illustration of why we need the original autopsies. The closest document that we have to them--the IHH summary--clearly says Dogan was the only one found to have been shot at close range. But we can't use that... sadly. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how the determination of "high angles" was made. It seems to me that depending on the position of a person's body, i.e.:lying prone or standing up ... an entry wound could appear to be from above ... when in actuality it was a horizontal shot, and vice-versa Zuchinni one (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that a number of factors play in. Gravity, for example, would determine the trajectory of the bullet and a lot of internal damage. Also, if I'm bent over and a bullet goes through me, the path will appear bent once I am straightened. But the bottom line actually just winds up being that we're not the experts. It's the people who did the autopsies that get to make those kinds of determinations. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Only moderately on topic but the initial UN report came out today and contains some bits about the autopsy, amongst other things. So far, it's devastating. Happy reading. Sol (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sol. Remember that this isn't the UN report, with a capital 'U'. This is the report for the UN Human Rights Council, and their mandate is not fact-finding, but investigation of wrongdoing. The UN report won't come out for a couple of more weeks. Meantime, I'm trying to look over this report, but I must admit, it's dreadfully boring. It would help if it weren't so skewed in its reporting of the events. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Good call. I plead lack of sleep! Sol (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on video verbiage

During the raid, an announcement is made over the intercom, whose content, which is quoted in the article, is being disputed by several editors (including myself). One source says "Don't show resistance." Another source says "Stop your resistance."

The video can be seen here (quote is at 13:10), and a much clearer video from another source, documenting the same announcement can be found here (quote is at 8:25).

I'd like to ask uninvolved editors to listen to both videos, then comment as to (1) what they think is said during the announcement, and (2) what they think the best resolution for the dispute is. Previous discussion can be found here.

Thanks, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no discussion on this issue since I have linked to the Al-Jazeera video more than a week ago. As I find this video to be a "smoking gun" of sorts, I will go ahead and change the wording to "Stop your resistance." If other editors accept it, great. If this causes us to restart stalled discussion, even better. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to interpret videos, we are here to express what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that the captain said "do not show resistence". If you find reliable sources which disagree then we have something to work with. Our interpretation of a video doesn't matter, even if we are right and the source is wrong. You are off the mark. As it currently stands in the article you have made a synthesis of two sources. You have chosen the wording you prefer and ut it infront of the incomplete quote from the other source. The two sources show a dispute, one says one thing and the other shows another. We have to say "though there is disagreement over the exact wordin..." and show both examples. We can't choose which one you prefer. ValenShephard (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources saying different things, both wording should be included. We should not guess which source is more accurate by simply stating one. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. What the user has done is synthesise the more controversial wording of one source, with the ending of the other source(which he/she has removed). This is unacceptable original research and synthsis of sources. Like BritishWatcher said, we include both versions of accounts and make it clear there is disagreement. That is what representing reliable sources means. ValenShephard (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated before, after listening to the video footage linked above, it's pretty clear that the captain says "don't show resistance". It's somewhat telling that article that used the phrasing "stop your resistance" is from May 31, 2010 - the same day as the raid. I think it lends quite a bit of credence to the "don't show resistance" phrasing that the same source (the Guardian) changed the phrasing it reported to "don't show resistance" in the article published twelve days later, on June 11, 2010. I doubt that the Guardian even had access to any sort of audio recording of the event on May 31st, considering that (if I recall correctly) all footage was confiscated by the Israelis shortly after the raid. ← George ^talk 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very glad that I was able to restart discussion on this subject.

@George, if The Guardian didn't have access to video when the first article was written, how did they figure out the wording spot-on, word-for-word as it was on the video? To assert that the second article constitutes a change of position on the part of The Guardian, you would have to prove that they had the first article in mind, and decided to override it. The two articles were written by two different people, so that probably played into the differences between them.

Also @George, have you listened to the AlJazeera video? It's even clearer there that the voice says, "Stop your resistance." When I had my relatives and friends listen to the first one, most of them couldn't tell what he was saying. When I had them listen to the second one, they all said unanimously, "Stop your resistance."

@ValenShephard and BritishWatcher, I am open to the suggestion of including both sources. How would you suggest incorporating them both?

@ValenShephard, your discussion here and on the subject of expired medicines leads me to seriously question your understanding of WP:SYNTHESIS. There's no synthesis here. There's a disagreement between sources on a question of fact. I'm not drawing any conclusion that's not explicitly mentioned in the source.

@Everyone, as this is a question of fact--of what the captain did or did not say--one source is, in fact, wrong, and the other is right. This fact is relatively easy to arbitrate. We just need to listen to the videos. I ask that everyone take a random friend, who doesn't know about this dispute at all, and show them the AlJazeera (second) video. Ask them simply, "What does the guy say at 8:25?" See what they answer. It's super clear. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting. I had listened to the 60 minute long version someone had linked in the earlier discussion. In that version, it sounds like "don't show resistance" (minute 58:30). In your second version (not sure who it's from), it definitely sounds like "stop your resistance". It's even obvious why, when going back and listening to the first video after listening to the second - the captain has a fairly heavy (and somewhat unusal) accent, and is putting additional emphasis on the word stop. After listening to both versions, I would support using only the phrasing "stop your resistance", even in favor of listing what both sources said. ← George ^talk 09:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

George, I've got to admire your open mindedness. It's something I know I need to work on. I'm sure the very loud yell that immediately precedes the quote in the first video might have had something to do with the obstruction of what he says... :-) But that's life.

I forgot to mention in my last post, that the edit I put in included the text, "According to certain sources, Show no resistance," in the citation. I think that's appropriate, but doesn't bulk up the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

Bayoumi, Moustafa (Editor), (2010) Midnight on the Mavi Marmara: The Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and How It Changed the Course of the Israeli/Palestine Conflict. Haymarket Books, ISBN 978-1608461219

82.81.29.160 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deaths (nationality)

Can the editors change the following Death(s) 9 passengers (8 Turkish passengers and Furkan Doğan)

in to Death(s) 9 passengers (8 Turkish passengers and 1 American Turkish passenger)

To the editor who made the above suggestion, please identify yourself. There's been a lot of controversy on this suggestion, in which I have thus far not gotten involved. Some sources say that he was a dual citizen, but his father says he wasn't. Given that the US State Department, along with every major media organization and the IHH itself, has labeled him a dual citizen, I would be comfortable referring to him as such. No offense to his father, but he really had to have been a citizen, or this was a huge screwup on the part of a lot of people in a position to know. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"execution style"

2nd Paragraph in the lead: "Nine activists were killed,[22][23][24] and dozens were injured. A UNHRC fact-finding mission found that six of the nine passengers killed were shot execution style by the IDF.[25] Seven Israeli commandos were also injured in the skirmish"

- biased, and should not be included in the lead. Request reomval of " A UNHRC fact-finding mission found that six of the nine passengers killed were shot execution style by the IDF".

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.226.21 (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it must be immediately balanced by quotes from Israel explaining that their soldiers were defending their lives. But better to remove it from the lead, and discuss in more appropriately in the article.Kinetochore (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also please note that the same information is repeated 3 more times in the article: in Mavi Marmara boarding section, United Nations investigations section and legal assessments section. Ctrl-F "execution" will do. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Kinetochore said above as well; I would only add one point. The phrase "execution style" in reference to guns oftentimes seems to have the connotation where a person is killed by being shot once in the back of the head. The U.N. report however is extremely vague regarding how they were killed, but it uses the phrase "summary execution" which to me brings up the image of people being lined up and shot by a firing squad. This seems more consistent with what they were claiming happened instead of the former. As such I think it would be important to use the phrase "summary execution", the same phrase used by the UN Report, instead of "execution style" when discussing their claim in the United Nations investigations section.Chhe (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: "execution style" comes from the referenced Truth-out article. I'd leave it, at least in attributed form ("described in news as execution style" or something) for the sake of article stability, but I don't really care if it stays or goes or is replaced. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In addition, I would add that the finding is "alleged," has not been adopted by the UNSC and has not been corroborated by any other independent investigation. I would also add a qualification that the UNHRC as a body has been the most virulent critic of Israel, singling out that country for condemnation while ignoring human rights abuses and violations in Turkish occupied Northern Cyprus, Turkish Kurdistan, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chinese occupied Tibet, Syria, Darfur and practically two-thirds of the nations occupying seats on that corrupt body.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I popped in Chhe's suggestion to see how it sticks. I'm not married to the idea of it in the lead but if people want it I've no objections. Sorry, JG, I disagree on those points; we've already framed it as the finding of the UNHRC and not presented as fact in the neutral voice. And you'd be hard-pressed to work in circumstantial evidence against the panel's neutrality while observing policy. Sol (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NP Sol. I left it but added an additional counter-balancing edit sourced to an RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Great job JG and Sol. What are we going to do about the repetitions of the execution-style in the rest of the article:

• Mavi Marmara boarding
• United Nations investigations
• legal assessments

? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah cooperating! JG, I took out the addition on the UNHRC report and the EU vote abstension as it seemed to be talking about their rejection of the new measure for a lawsuit and not the report itself. I think there actually is a statement by the US criticizing the report and I'll try to dig it up. Sol (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

JG, I reinserted the US/EU opposition/abstention to the HRC resolution to the Washington Post as the original source wasn't distinguishing between UN and UNHRC resolutions and made for a weird read. It's a small detail but it might help folks doing background reading. Sol (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN fact-finding mission was lead by three independent int'l jurists. The mission was staffed by many professionals from the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights. Their findings about "summary executions" and clear evidence for prosecution of war crimes, etc. are not "allegations." While it's not a court of law in the traditional sense, they made findings of fact after interviewing hundreds of witnesses, and made legal determinations.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling the killed terrorist activists implies that they were coming with peaceful intentions, which damages the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momeiyo7 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling the casualties on the marmara activists implies that they had peaceful intentions,which damages the neutrality of the article. Momeiyo7 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Most news sources have called them "activists." That's more than good enough for us.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we get more sources to support the claims of "execution-style?" I know this was an accusation that went around the world but no evidence was ever provided other than testimony from witnesses. Execution style has a criminal connotation and implies murder. From what I understand several of the activists killed were shot at close-range, that isn't execution style. Is there any evidence aside from activist hearsay? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN fact-finding mission uses that term as does the source that reports on the findings. Read the footnotes in the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The UNHRC's report relied on the Turkish autopsy and the eyewitness accounts to reach their conclusion. A few of the factors seem to be powder burns around wounds, angle of shots and in one case that an unexpanded beanbag round was found in someone's skull (the idea being that you'd have to shoot someone pretty much point blank in the face for the round not to expand). In conjunction with the eye-witness accounts it looks fairly damning. I think we've got enough sources to include it unless they aren't RS. Sol (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol, I concur with your conclusion that we have enough, but we don't have to "look behind" a report of a UN fact finding mission. It's RS and that's all we need at WP. This is particularly true here, as the mission was headed by three prominent international jurists, had a professional staff of lawyers and investigators from the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and examined other evidence.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So the UNHRC relies on Turkish autopsy and eyewitness accounts? Even though the aid ship was owned and commanded by Turkish Islamists? Execution style has a legal connotation to it. It implies a pre-mediated act of violence, i.e - Israeli soldiers entered the boat and started offing people. Getting shot at close range is more than consistent with circumstances of confrontation. The Israeli narrative is the soldiers were defending themselves after being attacked by activists. Do we have sources that explicitly claim that Israel executed activists? This a very charged accusation and should be supported by a variety of sources. Is a questionable UNHRC and anonymous eyewitnesses enough to state the claim as fact? I say it should be attributed to the accusers and balanced with Israel POV is this is going to be in the lead. I can't find the source right now but there is an article somewhere that includes testimony from one of the Israeli soldiers on board who claimed he shot man in the face while protecting a wounded soldier from the activists. Execution is a very emotional word and based on the content of the article it is more than obvious that that is hardly the mainstream consensus. ~

Edit: The UNHRC is an RS the same way the Goldstone Report is an RS. A fact-finding mission administered by a series of Muslim states is hardly tantamount to say...a United Nations Security Council Resolution. No Western nation has even remotely inferred Israeli soldiers started executing passengers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All the characterizations of the killings as "executions" are in the article as the findings of specific sources, not statements of fact. Sol (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is truth a reliable source? This is what the UNHRC claims:

170. The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner

consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution. Furkan Doğan and İbrahim Bilgen were shot at near range while the victims were lying injured on the top deck. Cevdet Kiliçlar, Cengiz Akyüz, Cengiz Songür and Çetin Topçuoğlu were shot on the bridge deck while not participating in activities that represented a threat to any Israeli soldier. In these instances and possibly other killings on the Mavi Marmara, Israeli forces carried out extralegal, arbitrary and summary executions prohibited by international human rights law,

specifically article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.80

The report is explicit in that 6 of the 9 activists dead were allegedly killed in an "arbitrary and summary execution" manner. The report doesn't offer any serious proof of the claims other than "On the basis of the forensic and firearm evidence." I'm assuming Israel has a challenge to the claim that it executed passengers so perhaps that should be emphasized? It seems rather dubious to include an accusation that Israel executed innocent people when others argues the casualties were the result of the clashes and not a pre-mediated murder fest. I imagine if Israeli Navy seals wanted to execute activists they could have done so very efficiently without even boarding the ship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if truth-out.org is a reliable source, but I'm sure several could be found for the paragraph you quoted (I searched for the first sentence on Google and found a handful of source I would consider reliable for the statement). Exactly what kind of "serious proof" would you ask for beyond the "forensic and firearm evidence" identified? I'm not sure if Israel denied executing passengers, but it wouldn't surprise me, and if so it should be mentioned, though not "emphasized", any more than the UN's claims should be emphasized. They should both be stated factually and flatly in the usual "A says B. C says D." manner, lending them weight in proportion to that provided by reliable sources. Where does the UN say that the passengers are "innocent"? And where does the UN say that there was "a pre-mediated murder fest"? I think you're reading your own biases into the report. Execution does not denote guilt or innocence of the party being executed, nor does it say whether or not the act is justifiable, nor does it say whether or not the act is premeditated - it's just a description of a way of being killed (usually at relatively close range, and while the party being killed is unable to immediately defend itself). You could execute a mass murderer for a good reason, planned months in advance, or you can execute an innocent person for no reason what so ever, deciding to do so right at that very moment. They both match the meaning of the term "execution". ← George ^talk 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

George, I agree with your conclusion. If you found RSs additional to the one provided, please add them to the article as additional footnotes.

If the Israeli gov't denies the UN fact-finding mission's determination about execution it should, of course, be taken with a huge grain of salt. Governments (like other large organizations) don't like to have their dirty laundry exposed by the UN, human rights activists, or anyone else. A summary denail from the expert Israeli govt PR machine is to be expected and deserves a brief mention in our article. I am reminded of the old investigative journalists' maxim: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."--NYCJosh (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN reports only mentions the executions in passing. It simply says, "According to forensic and firearm evidence." All the other news-related RS are simply regurgitating the original UNHRC link. Execution is a very charged WORD and for now it seems to be fairly included in the article, but I do think we could improve on it. I have yet to find any world body, nation, or organization outside of Muslim-controlled UNHRC that remotely infers executed passengers. Video footage shows a confrontation occured - the activists killed were not passive victims to disproportionate violence. Is there a mention of the BBC documentary that includes footage and named testimony mostly confirming Israel's account? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Muslim-controlled UNHRC"? Sorry, I stopped reading your post after coming across that ignorant, discriminatory remark. ← George ^talk 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please. The UNHRC has been condemned by numerous UN officials as well as Western governments. It is controlled by the Non-Aligned Movement headed by Muslim oil, most specifically Saudi Arabia. I don't think this it is discriminatory to point out the council condemned Israel before any investigation began. So please AGF and hold off on accusing other editors of ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I will treat your comment the exact same way I would treat the comments of an editor claiming that we can't trust the New York Times (or equivalent), because "the Jews control the media" or some such nonsense. They, like you, would no doubt cite various examples to support their racist stance. But racism has no place here, nor anywhere for that matter. If you have no policy-based arguments, and choose to instead throw out racist analysis, then you're welcome to discuss the matter with yourself. The assumption of good faith ends when reason is given to no longer assume such. ← George ^talk 23:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to throw the racism grenade George. The UNHRC has been widely criticized both within and outside the United Nations and many Western nations have boycotted their resolutions. I don't understand the analogy to the New York Times, a respected newspaper and reliable source, to a human rights council run by some of the most oppressive and human-rights violating nations on this Earth. Am I racist for pointing this out? The UNHRC report is ambigious as far as the flotilla goes and provides absolutely zero evidence or proof that any executions took place. Outside of the criticized UNHRC report, do we have other real sources or major bodies agreeing with the claims? Say the UNSC or secretary general? How about video footage, documentaries? Something concrete and not anonymous testimony. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Citing the religion of the members of a group as a reason to not trust them is discriminatory. To put the analogy more bluntly, you don't like the UNHCR report because you think they're controlled by Muslims with ulterior motives; anti-Semitic individuals don't like American media outlet reports because they think they're controlled by Jews with ulterior motives. Both of those stances are terribly racist.

No other international investigation into the raid has yet to be completed. Israel is conducting its own investigation, which has been largely criticized for not being impartial, and the UN has setup a panel of inquiry of its own, but neither has released any findings yet. The only group I saw that criticized the UNHCR findings is Israel (unsurprisingly). We should mention that in the article. But your attempts to discredit a source you don't like because of personal biases is not inline with Wikipedia's policies or goals. ← George ^talk 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, you are correct on both counts.

Please refrain from responding to long meandering comments that fail to state objections fully supported by WP rules. Let's save this page for WP work.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. There is nothing racist or discriminatory about pointing out the UNHRC is controlled by the non-aligned movement which is dominated by Muslim nations. This has nothing to do with religion specifically but rather a collection of Muslim nations imposing injecting Islamic philosophy into subject of human rights. The UNHRC has been widely condemned by numerous organizations, newspapers, and UN figures - including Ban Ki Moon. Recently the rights council has attempted to ban criticism of Islam, branding anyone who questions Muslim foreign policy as "racist" and "islamophobic." I'm simply citing mainstream sources, so attacking other editors for stating the obvious is dubious at best and malicious at worst. I said the UNHRC consists of some of the most oppressive nations on this Earth. Is that a racist statement? Is it racist to say that Muslim states as a whole rank the lowest in terms of human rights according to Freedom House? Is that racist? No. Now, I ask again - do we have any sources outside of an unsubstantiated UNHRC report to confirm claims that Israel executed passengers? Or is that a racist question? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, don't dare throw out the racist card with such callousness. The UNHRC is a body that is dominated by Islamic states and their allies and don't just take my word for it, see this.[1] It's predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission was dissolved by Kofi Annan because of its extremist and biased positions[2] and unfortunately, the UNHRC exhibits the same traits and picks up where the UN Human Rights Commission left off. Unfortunately, Sol is correct and truth is not a criteria for RS. However, whenever the UNHRC is used as a source, it should come with the qualification that it is an organization that is dominated by Islamic countries and their allies. Just by way of example of how obscene this organization is, it actually congratulated Sudan for its "cooperation" on Darfur. Enough said.--

Of the 48 countries presently on the UNHRC, fewer than 9 can be called "Muslim" countries. There is not Muslim domination. Get your facts straight before making wild allegations. The UN fact finding mission was charged by the UNHRC but was led by three independent prominent international jurists and the professional staff was comprised of UN high commissioner for human rights staff. The report was compiled based on interviews with hundreds of witnesses and examination of other evidence.

Moreover, even if my preceding paragraph were not the case, we at WP look at RS. A report of a major UN body is RS and notable. Please stop wasting people's time here.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-seven of its 47 seats are Asian/African, with Arab/Muslim states accounting for the bulk of these. This not only guarantees massive anti-Israel bias, but it makes mockery of human rights. Among the council’s members are such stalwart champions of civil liberties as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Pakistan, Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritania, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, Malaysia and Qatar. Do you want a bigger shovel?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Any report generated by the UNHRC needs to be accompanied by the above-stated qualification.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're attacking not just all "Muslim" countries but also most countries other than the US and the European powers. You've got strong political views. One might be tempted to call them "Western-biased" or "Euro-centric," but I won't try to tease them out and guess. Your personal political opinions are not notable. Plus they are irrelevant since the report is RS and notable. Plus your attacking the UNHRC not the fact-finding mission (see my comment above). I will no longer respond to such comments unless they are well founded on clearly referenced WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking anyone. Plenty of RS and primary sources within the United Nations support the argument that the UNHRC mandate is deeply flawed. A report by the UNHRC is reliable as a report by the UNHRC. It is an RS in the way it is used. It isn't a certifiable fact that Israel executed anyone. The UNHRC offers zero evidence to support the narrative and all available evidence paints a much different picture. So we attribute the claims to the UNHRC explicitly, and like Jiuj said maybe some information about UNHRC credibility should be mentioned somewhere. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The UNHRC report should be cited to the UNHRC explicitly. Israel's rebuttal and opinion of the HRC should follow that. Trying to paint the UNHRC a certain way outside the context of this event is clear POV-pushing, and should not be done in this article. The rest of your post was original research, so I won't address it, though I will note that the "execution style" phrasing was first brought up in the autopsy reports of the dead activists, not by the UNHRC; the autopsy report should also be mentioned. ← George ^talk 06:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which part was original research? When you summarized my contributions here as racist or when I linked reliable sources proving a shining bias within the UNHRC? I am not so concerned about the UNHRC but rather claims that Israel executed passengers. I've asked more than three times George if you can provide a mainstream RS that agrees with the UNHRC claims. Can you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your own personal analysis of the UNHRC is original research. I'm glad you've switched to discussing the reliability of the UNHRC, and those groups which feel the "UNHRC mandate is deeply flawed", even if this isn't the article on the UNHRC - where that kind of discussion belongs - instead of just flatly condemning the group because of the religion of its members. Regarding other mainstream sources, didn't I just say that the autopsy reports also alleged that the dead activists were killed 'execution style'? I would be very surprised if anyone else claimed that the dead activists were executed at this point (aside from the passengers possibly), as the other investigations into the event have yet to be completed. The request is a pretty silly. ← George ^talk 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer my question George: Any mainstream RS confirm the claims made by UNHRC? Seems clear to me most of the world has ignored the fact-finding mission administered by historic enemies of Israel, including states that actively sponsor Islamic terrorists, with some even haveing ties with the organization responsible for the flotilla! Gasp, but this must be original research. I've provided more sources than you George. When someone needs to pull the racist card in the middle of a cordial debate it makes it really hard to assume good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For the third, and last time, the autopsy reports, which were reported on in mainstream reliable sources, described bullet wounds that coincide with someone being killed execution style. Eyewitnesses aboard the ships made the claim as well (such as Mattias Gardell). I don't have time for repeating myself. Search the archives for "execution" or "autopsy" - I'm sure you can find the (many) previous discussions on the issue. I think I've wasted quite enough time on this pointless discussion already.

Telling others you don't approve of racist commentary is not a "card", and I'm fairly tired of your tendentious, off-topic rambling. I honestly couldn't care less if you assume good faith on my part. You've made your own biases on the matter quite clear, and used up my good faith in the process. I'm here for Wikipedia, not for the Israelis, and not for the Palestinians (two peoples I couldn't care less about); whether you choose to believe that or not also doesn't matter in the least. ← George ^talk 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, I've noticed your Knighty colors. "execution style" is an opinion and should be clearly attributed. Truth out there secondary comments on primary sources lack neutrality and imho, use/abuse primary sources to make a WP:POINT. I guess mainstream secondary sources reflections (CNN/BBC/Rueters/..) might be more appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed truth out there sources, this secondary reliable source might be more appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting WP editing style, Agada, you question the reliablity of a source without giving any reason for your challenge. You do this even though the source merely reports findings of a UN report to which it links. Had you really been concerned about the accuracy with which the source conveys the UN info, you could have followed the link or gone to the UN site. Then you mention (a few lines up on this page) a second source, which in your view is more reliable, but you then still proceed to delete the first source AND the text it supports in the article. One has to suspect that some editors around here have political agendas.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NYCJosh, nice to meet you. Thank you for your attention to this article, especially in the investigation section. Making some structure and adding facts are great idea. Regarding this edit, there is a concern of using primary source as base on phrasing, secondary source is still better according to Wikipedia principles: though it might be less factually exact, it is usually is more neutral and demonstrate notability.

So maybe instead of: The report also found, based on forensic pathology and ballistic evidence and based on passenger testimony, that six of the victims "were the victims of summary executions," inlcuding two of the victims who were shot after they were severely injured and could not defend themselves

we can use something along those lines: The U.N. Human Rights Council endorsed the report of a U.N. fact-finding mission that accused Israeli commandos of summarily executing six passengers on a Turkish aid flotilla ...

I'd preserve both primary and secondary sources as support for new phrasing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about UN investigations. I would not suggest calling this mission a "UN mission", to avoid confusion between the investigation under HRC mandate (this one) and under Secretary-General mandate (another one). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, this was not the UN/Ban Ki Moon mission, so maybe The U.N. Human Rights Council report accused Israeli commandos of summarily executing six passengers on a Turkish aid flotilla ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

George, where are the autopsy reports? No doubt mainstream sources included the claims made by the UNHRC report, but what else do we have? Any reliable, independent sources that confirm claims made by UNHRC? "Eye-witnesses" are unhelpful in this sense. Like I said before, it seems most of the world has ignored claims that Israel literally executed passengers as there is video showing soldiers clashing with activists before any shots were fired. I'm personally very interested in accusations that Israel executed innocent civilians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having flash backs to the Obama birth certificate conspiracy frenzy (complete with implications of Muslim conspiracies!). Autopsy publication law varies from country to country and often depends on the consent of the family. You may not like the report, you may not think it was done by a neutral party (wild-eyed radical Karl Hudson-Philips and the rest of his 'cell'!) but it says what it says and its notable. Sol (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

More silly analogies. It is not outrageous to ask for the autopsy report. All we have is an ambiguous UNHRC report that includes two sentences referring to forensic evidence. Has this report been released to the public? Where did it take place? Do we have any 3rd party sources (preferably medical experts) confirming the findings? All we have is a fact-finding mission administered by a discredited human rights council dominated by some of the human-rights violating nations on this Earth. It seems many primary sources like Ban-Ki Moon agree the UNHRC has been less than stellar when it comes to credibility. But I guess some editors aren't phased by the fact that Saudi Arabia is a member of the council. I find your inference that the obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists is equal to people who suspect claims that Israel went around and executed passengers to be quite offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The report in question can be found here. Of course this is a primary source and we should be sticking with secondary and tertiary sources.Woland (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know this. This is the only evidence they provide:

On the basis of the forensic and firearm evidence, at least six

of the killings can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions. As such, the conduct of the Israeli forces amounted to violations of the right to life and of the right to physical integrity, as stipulated in articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights.

No link to an autopsy report, no 3rd party sources confirming the findings. We have general news stories citing the UNHRC reports, but they attribute the findings to the UN. Israel already released its own investigation I think which hasn't been challenged by the UN, though I imagine they'll just say it is "insufficient" like their Gaza war probe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, man. The talk page is not for discussing the actual issue or for pushing your POV. These are the only reliable sources we have, and as such, these are the sources we can use. If you have other reliable sources that criticize the above report that aren't in the article then perhaps you could bring those up and discuss their addition. Woland (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. UNHRC is an RS in the sense that it represents its own claims. But what the UNHRC says cannot be attributed as fact independently. I've asked over, and over, and over again if any editor here can link the original autopsy report or specific forensic evidence the UNHRC probe alludes to, and the only response I see is cries of racism, allegations of POV-pushing, and my personal favorite - original research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't clear. As Wikipedians we try to write about subjects, as they are, by using secondary and tertiary sources. I have no idea how accurate the UNHRC is in relation to what the reality of the situation was. If you would like to debate the validity of said finding I would encourage you to seek out different forums that are more amenable to debate and less so to facts and reliable sources. Sadly, AGF only goes so far, good Sir. I'm afraid you have wasted your precious reserves of said resource. I wish you good day and hope that you will someday be able to observe the basic policies of Wikipedia. Very very very, warm regards, Woland (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has said we should assert "execution style" as a point of fact. As far as I know we don't. I've mentioned that and the article hasn't changed, so what's the deal? You are arguing against something no one's advocating. And when you start talking about "Muslim-controlled" organizations you are going to get called out, even if you meant it as shorthand for more comprehensive criticism. No one needs to convince an editor that the source is correct. Sol (talk) 05:15, 16

October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of the UNHRC is irrelevant. Claims that Israel went around and started executing passengers requires extraordinary evidence. If the UNHRC is to remain then it must be balanced with appropriate sources. I don't see the purpose of going to an internet chatroom begging for third-party sources to back up the findings. Sol, stop with the fallacies and strawmans. The UNHRC is pretty much controlled by the non-aligned movement which is controlled by *gasp* oil and guess who has the most oil? Oh yeah, Muslim nations. Case and point, Saudi Arabia - a leader in the human rights regime that is responsible for dolling out endless condemnation of progressive nations while tacitly protecting rogue states like Sudan and other countries with stellar-human rights record. Numerous editors have provided sources including UN officials backing up these claims, and the UNHRC wikipedia article contains similar criticism. So this isn't me POV-pushing. The UNHRC credibility vis-vis human rights has been recognized as tainted at an almost universal level, so attacking editors by labeling them racism for calling a spade a spade is simply intellectual dishonesty. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead problems?

As of 09:46, 12 October 2010

The Gaza flotilla raid was a military action by Israel against six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, 2010. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid,[6] medical supplies and construction materials, intent on breaking Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.[7][8][9] Five of the ships were apprehended without loss of life or severe injuries. On the MV Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists violently resisted the Israeli forces. Nine activists were killed, and dozens of activists and seven Israeli commandos were wounded. Widespread international condemnation followed, Israel-Turkey relations were strained, and Israel subsequently eased its blockade.

Questions:

• While the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and some construction material 0 should we be a little more precise? There is significant information to support the claim that the ship was also carrying bullet-proof vests, weapons, stashes of cash - things ordinarily not stowed on humanitarian vessels.

• The lead sentence seems awkward. Military action implies war or conflict. A navy boarding another vessel is rarely classified as a military action. When US coast guards board drug smuggling ships it is not announced as a "military action." Has any serious RS concluded that this was a military action? Of course it was carried out by the Israeli Navy, part of the IDF, so any mention of military is somewhat redundant in that respect. Perhaps something like, "The Gaza flotilla raid was a naval interception carried out by the Israeli Navy against six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla..."

• "On the MV Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists violently resisted the Israeli forces." Is this NPOV statement? Did the activists violently resist Israeli forces, or did they ambush them? Did they activists really react violently or did Israeli forces deliberately clashes with activists sparking resistence? Were the activists simply defending themselves?

The lead assumes the activists were resisting Israeli forces. Anyways, the rest of the article is very well put together IMO but I think the lead could be tighter. I don't know...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• It's probably not necessary to go into much greater detail, though if you have a specific suggestion we could discuss it. The ships probably were carrying bullet-proof vests and cash, and possibly even weapons. It was probably also carrying food for the passengers, their clothes, refrigerators to store the food, oil for the engines, laptops, video cameras (since reports indicate they were confiscated), and thousands of other things, but there's not much point in itemizing even screw and bolt aboard.
• A lot of the awkwardness comes from describing the "Gaza flotilla raid" as a single unit. I would actually prefer changing this to something like "The Gaza flotilla raid occurred on May 31, 2010 when Israeli naval forces boarded six ships from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla."
• Is it NPOV? Yes, as that's how reliable sources described the incident. Most reliable sources describe it as some form of resistance, while very few describe it as an ambush (and almost exclusively when quoting the Israeli military's side of the story). I'm not sure what difference there is between activists "[reacting] violently" and Israeli forces "sparking resistance" and activists "defending themselves". In all three cases, the activists reacted violently, and reliable sources describe it as such. The only difference is that in the second and third cases, you're ascribing motives to the Israeli forces and the activists, respectively - motives which are much harder to cite than actions.

The lead mostly describes the activists as resisting Israeli forces because that's how most reliable sources described the situation. ← George ^talk 08:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with calling it resistance. However, I am still disappointed that it doesn't mention the weapons/tools. I think consensus was to actually add this (see the archives) but it still isn't in. I'm not saying we need to detail allegations (or is it confirmed as fact?) of the guy getting dropped a deck is needed but the fact that it was not fists v guns needs to be clearer.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support some reference to weapons. Don't see any logical reason for its exclusion--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Should include the Israeli "execution" of six activists on the ship and the finding by the UN fact finding mission that those Israelis involved should be criminally prosecuted.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful to the discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not?--NYCJosh (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with what Cptnono said above.Chhe (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to mentioning the tools/weapons, but I don't see the point in mentioning the bullet-proof vests and cash. Why would those be important? Fine, the passengers were worried about being shot, and were trying to get cash to people who didn't have much. I just don't see the notability. The tools/weapons are more notable, but it needs to be clear who claimed that they were weapons, as almost everything identified by the IDF as a weapon wouldn't inherently be considered such (a kitchen knife could be a weapon, and someone might claim it is, but it's not inherently so in the way a bazooka or an AK-47 would be). ← George ^talk 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Israelis commandos killed passengers with their fire-arm, autopsy results clearly confirmed that. I'm all for Ahimsa, still even after reading Ghandi, I fail to see how mentioning bullet-proof vests and cash is bad. Existence of the separate group Israeli claim can be cross referenced with Turkish customs officials statements. It was funny to see following boardings which Israeli sources claimed were still performed by Shayetet 13, but female soldiers were deployed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, your claim that the IHH men brought the flak jackets and cash-stuffed envelopes because they were "worried about being shot, and were trying to get cash to people who didn't have much," is WP:OR.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

there are currently five editors AgadaUrbanit, Chhe, Cptnono,Wikifan12345 and myself who wish to include IHH weapons in the lead. George has expressed qualified support. I think we've got consensus for inclusion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the lead should be a concise overview of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George said, and I am paraphrasing, that the lead could state that the IDF DESCRIBED chairs or other equipment as "weapons." Not that WP should describe them as weapons.--NYCJosh (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Even without George, we now have six in favor of inclusion--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the part where I said I support the inclusion of the weapons as long as its done inline with Wikipedia's policies on citing who made the claim? AgadaUrbanit - mentioning the bullet-proof vests and cash isn't 'bad', it's just not necessarily 'good' in the lead. The lead is currently only one paragraph long, so adding it brings up issues of undue weight - not because the information is particularly scandalous (which was my point that Jiujitsuguy misinterpreted as OR), but because it's just not that noteworthy. Is there a reason that the reader should care that they had bulletproof vests? Is there a reason that the reader should care that they had cash? If so, what is that reason? And who states it as a reason? If there's a reason that makes the bullet-proof vests and cash notable, then add it to the lead stating that reason. Just piling it on top of an (already too long) list of crap on a boat without a reason isn't a good idea. ← George ^talk 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I object per nPOV. Describing an object such as a deck chair as a "weapon" violates this rule.

It is also an undue weight issue for the lead portion. One would expect a boat such as these to have deck chairs or railings, and when commandos land on board from helicopters in an attempt to seize control of the boat in int'l waters, it would not be particularly unexpected for some passengers to try to use those things to retain control of their vessel. Nor is it notable that a well-run, well-financed PR machine like that of the Israeli gov't would try to characterize these objects as "weapons." For the article yes but it's not that notable for the lead.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the neutrality issue. But without any context, it's just non-notable bloat. My guess is that those pushing the bullet-proof vests and cash issue are doing so because Israel's stance is that the bullet-proof vests indicated that the passengers were planning to violently attack the IDF boarding party, and that the cash was going to fund terrorist attacks against Israel from Gaza. Fine, state that, cite the reliable source for it, and cite who makes that claim. But to add it out of context opens up a whole new can of worms that will destabilize the lead going forward (one side adds their crap, then the other side adds theirs, and back and forth until the lead is once again badly bloated). ← George ^talk 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, why did you revert the "expired medicine"[3] portion of the edit? Was it an inadvertence? Your edit summary simply states "expanding, wikilinking, fixing poor grammar" which is somewhat misleading.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't me, that was Marokwitz. If you look at the diff you provided you'll see that the medical supplies weren't mentioned in either version. Though I probably would have removed it too, as your edit summary for that change mentioned "consensus established on Talk", when you had established no consensus for that addition. ← George ^talk 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry George, you're right. My bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I removed a reference for the humanitarian aid (as I don't think it's necessary, and we like to avoid having too many references in the lead), so I can definitely see how you could have mistaken the two edits. ← George ^talk 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As always, George slayer of dragons and defender of village people, is the voice of reason, reminding us all what is important and what is not. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to note is that I'm not totally happy with the way the deliverable cargo (construction materials, supposedly humanitarian stuffs) is being mixed with non-deliverable cargo (bulletproof vests and improvised weapons) in the current phrasing. The ynet article cited makes it pretty clear that this latter group were in the possession of the passengers ("Some of the suspects were found to be carrying large sums of money. Others had Kevlar vests and gas masks; and all were found to be carrying weapons such as knives, metal clubs and slingshots."). We should make that distinction clear here as well. If I have time later I'll try to tackle the issue, but others should feel free to improve it as well. Cheers. ← George ^talk 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: this comment involves a theory for which I am not presenting a RS specific to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. While passengers may have had some individually brought, non-deliverable items, it's not clear at all that the bulletproof vests fall into that category. Nor should they be readily lumped into some kind of "weapon" category. The vests photographed by the IDF are clearly marked with Red Crescent symbols, and also apparently unmarked by signs of combat. The Red Crescent strongly indicates the value of such materials for its ambulance drivers in Gaza here: Israel and the occupied and autonomous territories: Red Crescent ambulance driver saved by bullet-proof vest, 2002.--Carwil (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible. We just need to be careful about how we discuss them, to make it clear that we take neither side (that they were deliverable cargo, that they were non-deliverable items, or that they were a kind of "weapon" - unless we have sources that say one of those things, that is. The way it's worded now makes it sound like deliverable cargo, which we don't have the source for. It's pretty easy to fix that by just moving the mention to a bit later in the lead, and stating flatly that it was aboard the ship without getting into its purpose. ← George ^talk 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have found it. The image for clarity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged terrorists and Hamas members as well as Iranian politicians on board the Mavi Marmara?

Section title rephrased per BLP and for proper archiving.TMCk (talk)

Still not sourced. Collapsing thread not meant to improve the article per BLP and Not a Forum

Several CONVICTED terrorists were on the Mavi Marmara as well as Hamas members and Iranian politicians: 1) Amin Abu-Rashid, 43, chief fundraiser of Hamas in Western Europe 2) Yasser Muhammed Sabag, Syrian intel officer working with Iran and others according to Serbian news agency FOCUS (He was an active member of Abu Nidal terrorist organization) 3) Convicted terrorist hijacker Erdinç Tekir (left), IHH operative wounded aboard the Mavi Marmara, participated in the 1996 terrorist attack on the Russian ferry Avrasya to bargain for the release Chechens from Russian prisons. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, but served only 3 years. 4-Ken O'Keefe was also tied to terrorism. O'Keefe (41), who holds British citizenship, was described by the IDF as an "extreme Israel-hating, Hamas activist. His aim was to reach Gaza for training and to set up commando units for Hamas." 5- Hassan Aynsey (28), a member of a Turkish charity association, regularly transfers funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Hussein Orush, from the Turkish IHH organization, intended to assist al-Qaeda activists into the Strip via Turkey. 6- Ahmed Omemun (51) from Morocco, who also has French citizenship, is a Hamas member. IHH, The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. Hamas's leadership actually created the Union of Good in 2000—just after the launch of the armed campaign against Israel—as a means to transfer funds to Hamas. The Union of Good "compensated Hamas terrorists by providing payments to the families of suicide bombers. In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. (cited: U.S. Department of the Treasury) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.42.134 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting some change to the content of the article? If not, I suggest we close this section per WP:FORUM. NickCT (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, they made those accusations right after the raid and then promptly let the 'terrorists' go. Accusing the hardcore non-violent activist Ken O'Keefe of coming in to train commando units is hilarious. Sol (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) They let everyone go. What does that prove other than the fact Netanyahu was under a great deal of pressure? They also let people who shot, stabbed and beat Israeli soldiers go. Does that mean nobody attacked an Israeli on board? And O'Keefe is not a "hardcore non-violent activist". He is very clear that he finds violence acceptable under certain circumstances. That said, unless there's some coverage by RS of these people and their notoriety, we can't put them in the article. Tekir is already there I think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I too suggest collapsing/closing this threat as unsourced BS per BLP.TMCk (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) What unsourced BS are you referring to? O'Keefe said himself they knew what they were getting into and people had to be dumb to think it was a ship of "passive resistance." Here is a source for Yasser Muhammad Sabag, among others. [4]--Geewhiz (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Take a look at the section header which starts out: "Several CONVICTED terrorists..." and then the IP-post starts listing names of people who where on-board the vessel w/o giving any source. Big no no per BLP (and NPOV) which covers articles as well as talkpages. Also, if "convicted" they're would be more likely in some prison rather than on that vessel. Again, totally unsourced and a big no no per BLP. If "some", and I highlighted that, are seen as terrorist by someone (like Israel or/and other governments) than it should say that clearly for each individual with a source to back it up. So here you have some good reasons why I collapsed that thread after waiting three days for sources after I made my concerns clear. If you like to keep this thread open please change the heading to comply with BLP and NPOV and also provide sources for "all" allegations made in regards to living people. I you (or someone else) doesn't do so I'll collapse or remove this thread again and should it be reopened the way it is I will post it at BLPN as well as ANI for further input.TMCk (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC) BTW, as far as I've read O'Keefe's statements/interviews he new "what they were getting into" short time before the raid occured.TMCk (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) O, and wp:FORUM as pointed out above by another user does apply here too of course or do you see anything that might help improve the article?TMCk (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see some third party sources at least try to support and verify the claims made by the UNHRC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

UNHRC report

I'm a little surprised (well, not really) that the people adding information from the UNHRC report [5] neglected to mention that the fact finding mission said that the flotilla's primary objective was political rather than humanitarian (paragraph 80) and that the mission also said that where video evidence released by Israel conflicted with eyewitness accounts, they preferred the eyewitness accounts (paragraph 20), which is not exactly how jurists usually treat evidence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The flotilla's primary objective was admitted by the organizers and participants to be political. That's not a surprise. And "the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities" isn't the same as "we prefer the eyewitness accounts." If this were a common law court the IDF would have had to introduce all of the confiscated recordings into evidence; only introducing select portions of the original and suppressing the rest would run afoul of the best evidence rule/evidence disclosure. I don't think adding either of the proposed (?) changes is necessary although it would be helpful to see your sources. Sol (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is linked above. I got it from the article. Nice selective quoting, by the way. Here's the full sentence - "In light of the seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and the subsequent disclosure of only a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before it". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to the report, to the source analyzing the report in the suggested manner. I like the selective quoting accusation. Sol (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Good day, This occupied part of Cyprus is considered illegaly annexed by Turkey by the international community, i.e. UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974), you disagree? Hope&Act3! (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Off topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkey Islamist goverment supported the raid

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/turkey-denies-offering-assistance-to-gaza-flotilla-organizers-1.320328 This should be added to the article