Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Very one-sided documented

This article looks like a joke. If you want to document this conflict with pictures, there should be at least pictures of injured activists. Wait, Israeli stole all video material from activists and journalists and never gave it back. I wonder why. The IDF has "nothing to hide" about this raid I thought? Either way, showing pictures on this page of only injured Israeli soldiers and activists "attacking" potrays this raid wrong. As for the activists "attacking" (according to the dictionary: "to begin hostilities against") the smuggled video of Lara Lee clearly shows the IDF sniping from helicopters before they entered. Waiting for feedback and other Wiki-users to get a consensus, and edit this page. Because now it looks pretty much like it's written by a spokesman of the IDF. Tijs schelstraete (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

I removed the balance tag a second time after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sourcing concerns remain. I've tagged many unsourced claims. A substantial amount of material displayed as fact is attributed to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. That's the equivalent of citing information in the Turkish National Commission's report (which has also been listed but not attributed to any material) and presenting the information as fact.
• The lead is blatantly one-sided. It goes into extraordinary detail about attacks on Israeli soldiers while the mention of civilian casulaties is limited to pure statistics in less than ten words. The opening paragraph gives an assertion by the Israeli government about what the event was, but omits a counter-claim or a claim of any other kind whatsoever. The next paragraph goes a step further, presenting Israeli opinion as fact without any attribution (even to the Israeli government). It also makes vague allusions to unnamed "others" and omits basic information unfavourable to that perspective. Nightw 06:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So the lead is your concern?

Let's break it down:

Copy of lead for reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. 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 and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip. The government of Israel and others[who?] have alleged that the flotilla was organized as a provocation or media stunt.[text 1] On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from speedboats and helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish passenger ship MV Mavi Marmara, teams of prepared, trained and uniformed[not in citation given] IHH activists armed with metal rods cut from the ship fences and dressed in protected clothing from the construction materials[1] prevented Israeli boats from advancing by throwing broken plates and metal chains.[2][non-primary source needed] Commandos attempting to land on the top deck were attacked with knives and steel bars by IHH activists. Two commandos were thrown to the lower deck, one of them head down, and abducted along with a third commando. One of the commandos had his gun taken from him and used by the activists.[citation needed] Nine Turkish activists were killed and dozens were wounded.[3] Seven Israeli commandos were wounded, one of them seriously. [4] The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident. The ships were towed to Israel, where all people aboard were detained and deported.

First paragraph

• First sentence is neutral and basic. Second sentence explains the parties involved and their intentions. Third sentence tag can be supported with this opinion.

Second paragraph

• First sentence is clean, not seeing any neutrality issues. According to Israeli security interrogators, teams of Turkish activists were spotted and if I remember photographs of body armor found on the ship are available. Sentence could be modified with, "According to etc..."

• Not sure on the rest. A lot of the information from the lead is taken from content in the body. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An Israeli ambassador is Israel. I don't think you can effectively separate the two. With the second paragraph: yes, it could be modified, or it could just be reduced to the known facts otherwise counter claims will also have to be represented. The lead is not the place for these things. Nightw 07:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nice catch. I didn't even bother to read the author. I am quite certain other groups/nations other than Israel described the flotilla as an act of provocation or publicity stunt. If sourcing is an issue no doubt references exist, it's just a matter of finding them. Some might already be in the article. I don't think the lead is in conflict with NPOV, but it is bloated. It should simply summarize the flotilla. We could cut out the last two paragraphs in the lead, merge them into the body, and simply add a little to the first paragraph. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What about reducing the lead to a simple summary like:

---

The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. 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 and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip.

On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara, boarding has faced resistance of about 40 of "hardcore" IHH activists, armed with iron bars and knives. During the struggle, 9 activists were killed, and many were wounded. Ten of commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously. The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident.

---

? Ipsign (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a significant improvement since it sticks to the raw facts. Unless anyone objects, I will replace the lead with Ipsign's version now... Nightw 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hardcore"? Who says they were? What differentiates a "hardcore" activist from a... er, "softcore"(?) activist? Suggest removal of this POV term. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The term has been used in UN "Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry": "The majority on board were “peace activists” but a “hardcore group” of about 40 IHH activists boarded the Mavi Marmara separately without any security checks in the port of Istanbul. These passengers marked themselves out throughout the voyage as a separate group, and made preparations to resist any boarding of the vessel by the IDF".[1] Certainly, if you prefer "hardcore group" to "hardcore", it is possible to rephrase it to use "hardcore group" instead. Ipsign (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition: I've used the word "hardcore" merely to emphasize an (AFAIK undisputed) fact that not all passengers of Mavi Marmara were involved in the struggle (and implying that all passengers were involved, would be misleading). If there are ideas about other ways to say the same thing without going into half-page explanations - let's discuss. Ipsign (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'd suggest, then: "On the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara, boarders faced resistance from about 40 activists - described in a UN report as a "separate hardcore group" - who were armed with iron bars and knives." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections from my side, thanks. Ipsign (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the lead resolved, mostly, although there is still gives an assertion by the Israeli government about what the event was, but omits a counter-claim from the other party involved. The attribution of material to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, presented herein as fact, will also need to be addressed. As Wikifan notes, this can probably just be fixed by adding "according to..." Nightw 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What about dropping the last paragraph of the lead completely? Ipsign (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ip's suggestion, but would be okay with cutting out the last paragraph because that info is already represented in the body. Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Or add a competing claim by the Turkish organisation about what the flotilla was supposed to be. Either one. Nightw 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with either. The lead could be reduced even more if editors are concerned about the length of the intro. We could cut it at the first two paragraphs and move the rest to the body. Just a thought. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking it was getting a bid too short... Nightw 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Israeli ships identified

In the introduction to the "raid" section, it says that "two missile boats and the Sa'ar 5-class corvette INS Lahav left Haifa naval base..." However, there were actually two Sa'ar 5-class corvettes: the INS Lahav (Israel Defense Forces) and INS Hanit (Ynetnews, Belfast Telegraph). When the section Mavi Marmara boarding was divided into sub-sections for accounts by activists, journalists, and the IDF, the journalists accounts contained part of a piece by veteran Israeli correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai, mentioning that he was on "the Israeli missile ship INS Victory. After researching, I have discovered that the ship is the Sa'ar 4-class missile boat INS Nitzachon (meaning "Victory" in Hebrew). Could someone please change the intro to the raid section to mention all three ships? I can't from being temporarily topic-banned from the A-I conflict following a little dispute. Thanks!--RM (Be my friend) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

INS Hanit (Sa'ar 5) and INS Nitzachon (Sa'ar 4) took part in the 'raid' for sure. Don't know about INS Lahav Flayer (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

joking, right?

a zillion photos showing activists preparing to fight soldiers (with broom sticks etc), yet the peaceful soldiers offering detainees "fruit"...you must be fucking kidding us. HAVE SHAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.191.176 (talk • contribs) 19:16 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed ref

I have removed the ref entitled "Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis" from the history section. It was a dead link but the corresponding AP content seems to be still available from multiple sources and does not support the sentence after which it appeared. I have also removed the Katz 2010 ref from the same sentence, it was also irrelevant there. That ref is still used elsewhere in the article. We still have the press release ref which was also a dead link but it had already been archived. --Mirokado (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Inacurrate sourcing

I found a sentence it's source doesn't back up.

"However, a BBC documentary concluded that Israeli forces had acted in self-defense against a premeditated attack by a group of hardcore IHH activists.[17]"

The source is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html

Does anyone ever read the word BBC in here? This is the first source I've checked so far, so this article might as well be as spotless as an overripe banana... I can't remove it as this page is 'protected'. Who can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenDelhaize (talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look now. --Mirokado (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference is to http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=185381 "BBC's flotilla film slammed as 'biased'", so no problem. The NYT ref you mention is number 250 from elsewhere in the article... --Mirokado (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, my bad. Must've been extremely tired to make a mistake like that... Sorry. DenDelhaize (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Don't worry, it happens to most of us from time to time. --Mirokado (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)