Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.57.43.99 (talk) at 11:16, 31 May 2010 (→‎article name: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

WikiProject iconPalestine Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

POV issues

Who is writing this article, it seems as if passengers are members of criminal gang and so police has walked into a neighborhood and suddenly 19 people are dead. Please at least take note of the tone of the article. --yousaf465' 07:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has just reformatted it. The news is only a couple hours old (at most). Wikipeida isn't news anyways. Give it a bit while it is all put together. And acording to the video from Al Jazeera, the activists were meek while BBC footage clearly shows some rough stuff form their side. So right now it is pretty up in the air who is to blame (if anyone).Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cptnono bias: you say "BBC footage clearly shows some rough stuff form (the passengers') side. So right now it is pretty up in the air who is to blame (if anyone)." I have looked at BBC and listened to BBC. There has been no such allegation. What sort of 'rough stuff' do you mean. Do you mean it was rougher than the Israeli's stuff? Who anyhow initiated the attack? You seem v. biassed. NPOV cannot be neutral between the attacker and his victim. It is clear that here Israel is the attacker.
82.3.206.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Did you watch the video? Dudes were clubbing the hell out of the guy. That is only my interpretation. Good thing Bloomberg and other sources second it.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Clubbing" is quite different from shooting. Anyway, let's not bring politics here. Also, I think the number of casualties should be updated. Mar4d (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree regarding the POV issue. You'll want to talk to User:Jalapenos do exist who has been editing it. Obviously he's as much writing it as you are, or anyone else who wants to would be. Prodego talk 07:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying with a few things that might appear minor. For instance, I just reverted a new account who blanked info. It is perfectly fine info that has multiple sources from what I have seen. However, it needed an "according to" to assert that it isn't fact. Give ti time. Poke around yourself. Hopefully we can keep this neutral and not frustrating.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have to mention which side is giving that info, otherwise it will just turn into a POV article.--yousaf465' 07:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Someone again removed the gun line so I will reach into my magic bag of tricks and add it. For now since it is so fresh, controversial, and newsey we should certainly say "IDF radio reports" or whatever.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "According to" helps, but the account of the clash as it stands still only quotes Israeli and government sources. Wouldn't it appropriate to also quote the statement in the linked Al Jazeera article that, according to the Free Gaza leadership, the soldiers opened fire as soon as they boarded? Fluidchameleon (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the main movement article. I made sure to mention both. On this article however, one editor started and new accounts and IPs jumped in blanking content and vandalizing. Completely agree that the movements official word is required to balance it out.Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it just be better to create a seprate Israeli section so that the official IDF account can be freely documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.193.236 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

The ABC link is secondary source if I'm correct, as Israel's private channel 10 television gave that info but didn't gave the source of its information. --yousaf465' 07:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what line? I have a list of sources in front of me that can hopefully clear up who said it.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't mentioned the link, anyway it here At least 10 dead' as Israel storms freedom flotilla. I was talking about the the ABC link in the reaction section. --yousaf465' 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube as source ?

You can't use youtube as a source. --yousaf465' 08:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the assault video, they just landed without any resistant and then one guy fires with his pistol. --yousaf465' 08:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few good ones. The BBC one is over at the main movement article. The Aljazeera one that kicked off the media storm is alright. But no Youtube. Citeepisode over infringing copyright.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The othersUtubbed video claim the 16 of sixteen committed suicide as usually, just thy didn't explode the explosives, too wet to high tides on sea) . However it may be low grade instruction how to direct the PR campaign. Quite useful stuff, but the late comments for IDF spokesman about stubbed solders conflict somehow this video. It make only sense if only they sutubed themselves too. Ai 00 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... couldn't you please write it in simple English. ? --yousaf465' 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I agree that it may be misleading: utubed versus stubbed. Ai 00 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the part about the people stubbing/commiting suicide themselves is more controversial than calling the ship passengers "evil" in current circumstance. This content should be the last thing to add in an article that is already not large enough currently and lacks so much information. Mar4d (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre

This article should be moved to "Gaza flotilla Massacre" as it has been called so by many sources. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are quotes, blogs, or other pages referencing other conflicts entirely. I disagree with this justification for moving the page, though if a reasonable one could be found I would support that.LazySofa (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking SD?Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "massacre" is a frequent question on the English Wikipedia. So far, the conclusions have been that:
1) The term "massacre" is vague, and the best definition we have is that a massacre is an event that's commonly called a massacre. We can't determine that before the press settles on a common name for this event.
2) It's really hard for us to discuss it calmly. Instead we tend to uphold that proud Wikipedia tradition of having huge fights that soon cease to be about the matter entirely and start being about the fights.
Since we can't make such a decision yet, I suggest that we chill out and come back in a month to see how things go. --Kizor 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category

It has been called massacre by many so Category:Massacres is appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always considered cats navigational and not labels so I don't mind it.Cptnono (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the removal of this cat [[2]], until then it must be re added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the cat, but it shouldn't be re-added (and shouldn't have been added) unless and until notable, neutral sources start using that as the primary designation of the incident. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't expect CNN or LAtimes to name it as massacre.--yousaf465' 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And WARCRIMES is not acceptable. That needs to go immediately. I would cry vandalism but that user looks like he isn't new so it is just sad.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here we got another one Geotv--yousaf465' 09:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And WACRIMES still needs to go.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the International Court of Justice ever tries this and finds Israel (or any of its military) guilty, then it is a war-crime. Until then, definitely not. 203.173.37.146 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I putted Swedish pres article: Sweden calls on Israel to clarify aid convoy attack, but was quickly replaced with one from Israeli press. The attack happened on international waters so coverage may be from all countries. Right? Ai 00 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start new sections with == ==. You do not appear to understand how to use Wikipedia. Can you go over to the movement page and fix your formatting errors or do you mind if I remove them? Of course intl coverage is acceptable. Your edit may have been ammended for other reasons though. Can you provide a diff (click on History, click in the bubbles next to your edit and the one above it, hit compare, copy the link in the toolbar, provide it here)Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he doesn't, this maze of options and rules we have isn't something we can expect newcomers to know right away. Feel free to go ahead and fix formatting errors when you see them without having to ask. --Kizor 09:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But when he starts making sweeping controversial changes with bad formatting it turns into me just reverting. So Ai 00, your attempt didn't work. Can you try posting the link to the source ere and saying what line you are adding it to?Cptnono (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armed activists?

I see that someone has added a claim to the lead that the activists were armed. I gather this is something the IDF has claimed, but we shouldn't endorse either side's claims here. We can report it - I've added a line to the lead to reflect the claim - but we cannot state it as fact at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to swear? So fill in what you want: THIS IS A CLUSTER... We have addressed this over two articles. There are multiple sources. It was overly attributed. Was it removed by a vandal or something? What the hell man? It is claimed that a protester grabbed a gun and fired rounds.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we simply don't know the full facts. All we have are conflicting claims from two self-interested parties each intent on blaming the other. In such circumstances we cannot endorse one side's claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I gather this is something the IDF has claimed" You need to start gathering what the sources say. Remove it from the lead if you want but also spend the time googling over complaining on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cptnono please calm down if you are going to participate here shouting and swearing are not productive. Thanks, RomaC (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh totally. I am all sorts of enraged and need to watch the cursing and caps lock. But seriously, this is such a mess that editors are not even looking at sources because they are deleted or they are so amped themselves that they refuse to google it. My only excuse is that I have been looking at these guys for months while the majority of people discussing haven't even bothered to look into it until now. I'm also all sorts of bent out of shape about other stuff right now so am trying to relegate myself to the talk page over making sweeping edits that are sure to be fantastic (since I am the best) but also controversial ;PCptnono (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article

The title of the article should be Gaza Flotilla Attack rather than Clash, as a military clash requires two armed parties. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And both parties were armed.Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The armed status of the activists is contedsted, and even the reports claiming they had weapons say that those weapons were limited in nature and number. Fluidchameleon (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current title, "Gaza flotilla clash", is not supported by RS, the great majority of which are heading and leading with "attack" or "intercept", or "storm(ing)", etc., i.e. an active verb ascribed to the Israeli side. Suggestions for a better title:

  1. "Attack on Gaza flotilla"
  2. "Storming of Freedom Flotilla"
  3. "Israeli interception of Gaza aid ships"

Or maybe other editors have suggestions? RomaC (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this suggestion is premature. It only happened a few hours ago, after all, and the issue of who attacked who is still very unclear. Let's leave the title alone until the situation becomes clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a bit confusing right now, but as it forms into a media narrative some title might take hold. Joshdboz (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it is still early, but see no sources whatsoever claiming that the Freedom flotilla members boarded Israeli Naval vessels or helicopters, all say it was the other way round, Israeli military commandos going onto the aid ships. So even a temporary title should reflect what we know to be true. RomaC (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Look, repeated refs already although they do say farty which helps. Can editors name and reuse refs before it turns into a mess ?
^ http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7216380.ab
^ http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7216380.ab
^ http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2006940/gardell-ombord-pa-bordat-fartyg
^ http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2006940/gardell-ombord-pa-bordat-fartyg
Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities of victims

Sources urgently needed. --Leladax (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is reporting that most of those aboard were Turkish citizens. No confirmation from any source that I've found of the nationalities of the casualties, but the odds are that many were Turks, assuming the Beeb is correct. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I am not pulling up sources anymore but from what I saw a couple hours ago it was a very diverse group. There were people from all over. Most importantly, editors need to watch out for connecting the dots that were not there. 6 ships were stopped (maybe) 2 ships had not connected with the group so they may still be floating around out there with god who knows on them, and there were even more with mechanical problems. So basically, the pretrip manifest is a lot different than the ships stopped. The last umber I saw there were a couple Turks dead (reported in east Asian press) but that should not be considered in any ratio.Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalities included Swedes, Americans, Greeks, Pakistani journalists, a lot of other europeans; this article has a good bit of information: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest.developments/index.html?hpt=T1 Fluidchameleon (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some flag icons to the notable people onboard section to reflect this diversity. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

map

Any map available so someone could create one public domain?--DAI (Δ) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to know the coordinates of where the ships were at the time. Does anyone have this info? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Times, distances, and even departure points are disputed in sources so I recommend holding off.Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in quoting news sources

On such a highly charged topic, I would avoid citing anything from Israeli or Middle-Eastern/Turkish sources as "fact". We should qualify any claims (eg. number of israeli soldiers injured) as being "according to...". The opening paragraph currently states that "Israeli soldiers were injured" when there are no independent sources (ie. non-Israeli) for this. Likewise we shouldn't quote turkish/arab news reports claiming the soldiers "fired on unarmed civilians" as "fact" either. 203.173.37.146 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anything from Free Gaza needs to be handled with care as well.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking a blockade versus breaking through a blockade

I'm not sure who keeps messing up the grammar in the lead, but a blockade is broken when it's been entirely thwarted and abandoned by it's maintainers. What these six ships were doing was attempting to break through the blockade. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video of boarding

"Video of the boarding shows that Israeli soldiers rappelling down onto the vessels were immediately beaten with clubs by the activists."

This is NOT true! See the video for yourselves: [3]. Lesswealth (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I saw but unless the accompanying commentary from RS said it then it should go. I have a feeling that was a little OR from another editor so feel free to remove it if you have double checked the source.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it myself, unless one is blind, it's clear Israeli soldires were attacked by mob while they were clearly infrior in numbers. They had no other option but to open fire.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree a bit. It is easy to miss dude towards the end of the BBC video being mobbed as he comes off the rope. It is right before the guy in the life jacket starts banging on the commando. It isn't a big deal though since the amount of coverage of these videos will be sufficient to verify what we see sooner or later. I still would recommend removal until they do so just to keep things on the up and up.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed. Lesswealth (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They opened fire before boarding. Here's another video: [4] LazySofa (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the exact opposite is reciprocated with that interpretation.Cptnono (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont find these videos convincing beyound doubt either way, and believe interpreting them without better information is synthesis. We should be looking for sources rather than interpreting the videos ourselves. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Video showing israeli soldiers being clubbed and attacked the moment they board the ship. this could be a club or a bouquet of flowers. i cant tell. [5]

POV problems

The lead ended with Al Jazira report goes something like, "according to the video, it seem that the people on board (pro Palestinian activists) were peacefull in nature". Clear commentary to this video [6]-it shouldn't be in the lead. Also, well sourced information on IDF spokersman response was removed without even leaving edit summary. --Gilisa (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone needs to calm down and nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article body per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to remove it and it was put back. We should keep the lead simple for now in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Pakistan are not Arab countries

This is incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV & JIDF

This article has been targeted by the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force) which is trying to "win the PR war" online over this incident. [7] I suggest all edits be carefully vetted and examined before being committed.

Also the Israeli reaction has no business being the lead as they are party to this conflict. The United Nations should be the lead. Also, many more reactions can be found here and should be added to the article even if they are no palatable to the biased editors. [8] Truthiness54 (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, d*rn! I think they're trying to beat an invincible opponent this time! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"== Legality =="

Section needed. --Leladax (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article name

in my opinion undue blame is put on the israelis with this title, its a gross eaxageration. i suggest: unarmed arabs attack israeli helicopters in international waters.80.57.43.99 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365200307"