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 ReneJohnsen (talk | contribs) at 10:20, 3 June 2010 (→Norwegian military expert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Vote on renaming the article

Resolved

To shorten this page, this content has been moved to a subpage. Voting is ongoing and the discussion regarding renaming of the article is still open. It can be found here.

Outcome

Clear consensus for move to Gaza flotilla raid article moved by User:Tariqabjotu . Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Closing this appeal as it seems clear again strong consensus support for the move Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Overturn the vote and rename the page back to 'clash'?

The person who started the vote page yesterday, User:A930913, says below that he does not want to overturn the vote, but wants to "appeal" the result and revert the page name back to Gaza flotilla clash. The basis of his appeal is the present Wiki definition of "raid" which includes an element of surprise that User:A930913 says was not present when the navy conducted its operation on the flotilla. My questions are: 1. is there such a thing as an appeal of a vote and 2. If so, what is the procedure? Is it done by another vote of the editors as User:A930913, seems to think, or is administrator involvement required?

Basically, what I am asking is, is the voting below, which has been called an "appeal", a valid way to overturn the previous vote? KeptSouth (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It seems to me that editors had the opportunity to make their arguments and to vote, and that an editor cannot simply declare there is to be an appeal because they have a new argument or a new way of stating an old argument the day after losing the vote. But if there is an appeals procedure already in existence, I think we should follow it closely to determine whether a re-vote should be allowed. KeptSouth (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change, so I don't believe the section below is in anyway invalid, to be honest. I don't personally agree with it, but I don't think I personally agreed with the original name change either (too soon, etc). TFOWRidle vapourings 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying a vote can be overturned the next day --even on the initiative of someone who previously voted and lost. Following your logic the "appeal" is also pointless because consensus on the appeal is also subject to change, the next day. The practical result of following your logic would be that editors can rename or move the page back and forth at will with the winner being the name which exists at the time an admin locks further changes. —KeptSouth (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, yes. At some point the consensus will be that further name changes are disruptive, but I'm not sure that there's consensus for that at the moment. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there was no vote then, and there is no vote now ;-) There's simply discussion, in an attempt to form a consensus. If the consensus yesterday was for the current title, I suspect it's unlikely to have changed today. But efforts to see if it has are fine. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was whole page of voting, and you yourself voted.KeptSouth (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I participated in a discussion. In that discussion I indicated my preference, and explained why I had that preference. Even appointments, e.g. of administrators, follow discussion, not votes. You may notice that some editors use the term "!vote" when talking about such discussions - that's the reason why. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

I do not contest the outcome of the voting, but I submit that the article title chosen is factually incorrect and misleading. Raid (military) as defined by Wikipedia "is a military tactic or operational warfare mission which requires the execution of a plan where surprise is the principal desired outcome of the attack." If you read the main article, you will see that the ships were clearly warned. Since they were warned, the IDF lost the military advantage of surprise, hence this cannot factually be described as a raid.
You can Endorse the change from clash to raid, or you can Overturn the change back to clash. Please do not suggest any other names here.

I !vote Overturn for my reasons above. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote Keep for the fact they used flash and smoke grenades and that looking at Google "Flotilla Raid" is how it is described by the vast majority of sources including ones in Israel. Rarian rakista (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote Overturn for the same reasons. Additionally, raid is POV, a military and not policing operation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.61.135 (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote Keep. While they had been instructed to divert their course and the fleet expected some kind of confrontation, the methods used (by night, on international waters, descending from helicopters, etc.) qualify as a raid to me.--RR (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since raid is kind of surprise attack. Some kind of Israeli action was expected and (if) some communicated then only attack is left over. However the form of attack was surprise. Usually it may look that a boat coming (not at dark) to the ship. Few custom officer communicate, ladies and gentlemen we are IDF (the Jewish Army) and came here to.. and clarify they business. Not what was !surprise! Jump from dark sky, spry paintball, trow stun grenades and finally (if) kill at random. If this was not surprice, who are those who say it wasnt surprice ? Ai 00 (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that surprise was not a big factor since they radiod them and warned them (even before the ships left). However, now I am worried if raid (military) is wrong. wikt:raid seems closer to what I am thinking (1) A hostile or predatory incursion; an inroad or incursion of mounted men; a sudden and rapid invasion by a cavalry force; a foray. 2) An attack or invasion for the purpose of making arrests, seizing property, or plundering; as, a raid of the police upon a gambling house; a raid of contractors on the public treasury. Synonyms: hostile or predatory incursion): attack, foray, incursion). Maybe my understanding of the term is wrong though.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a respectable source so this based on it and omitting word 'attack' thus explicitly misquoted leverage do not bring much appellation to appeal. Looking in Jewish media for corresponding name i can find that the 'IDF operation'[2] on "armada of hate" was another triumph for Israel, sadly misinterpreted by international media. Ai 00 (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason at all to change this back to a worse name. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per User:RR above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there was a consensus on changing the name yesterday. A Wikitionary definition is no grounds to overturn it - it is not a reliable source, and it is a disfavored self reference. see WP: RS and WP:Self. Finally the Wiktionary definition of "raid" that you base your argument on is illiterate and inaccurate -"surprise" is not the desired "outcome". Surprise is a tactic - the desired outcome is defeating the enemy. You might consider changing the definition and trying again. KeptSouth (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translators Required

We need translators as Hebrew-English, Turkish-English, Greek-English etc.

Please list article references that require translations, and translators who are willing to translate articles into English. Kasaalan (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hebrew

he:המשט לעזה (2010)

I can try to translate some of these tomorrow. Do you want me to post the text here? RolandR (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. However, I am not a registered Wikipedia user. Is this ok? 87.69.208.92 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we appear to have opposing points of view, this could be very useful; if you accept my translations, or I yours, then this could remove any suggestion of partial or biased translation. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish

tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı

Translating--Realmegrim (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  for ntvmsnbc.com/id/25101234:

  The dialogue:

  Search & Rescue Center (SRC): Mavi Marmara, this is RSC. Mavi Marmara this is RSC.
  Mavi Marmara (MM) : They are jamming the signals. They are using real weapons.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara, this is RSC.
  MM : We have injured passengers on board. They are using real weapons.
  SRC : When did the assault start?
  MM : I can not hear you well.
  MM : I am giving our coordinates (coordinates of the ship). The assault from helicopter started at 4.32.
  SRC : Any soldiers arrived from boats? From the boats around the ship?
  SRC : Mavi Marmara the soldiers arrived from boats?
  MM : From boats and the helicopter.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara what is the situation in the other ships?
  MM : Gunfire started again. Gunfire started again right now.
  SRC : Any attack on other ships?
  MM : Our ship is surrounded. All connection with the other ships is cut.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara, do you know how many wounded is in the ship?
  MM : We do not have any information for now.
  SRC : Any death?
  MM : No, no, not for now.


Greek

el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας

List articles needed to be translated into English. Translators you may list your names under sections. We need all parties news for NPOV article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a global perspective is wonderful, but please also keep in mind the policy on non-English sources. We should go to every length to find a translation which has been already done for us (i.e. by the author or agency), and we should only use the source if it is providing original information which isn't found in other sources. And then, we also have to be wary of copyright issues.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew newspapers useful since they provide English translations. However, as far as our editors and sources I read claim, the English versions of local newspapers do not contain all info, sometimes because of translation processes, sometimes because of self/state imposed bans on critical political matters. It is same for other country newspapers too. Turkish and Hebrew sources are critical for both sides of the clash. If we have some willing translators it would be great. English news sources are 2nd degree sources in this case and mainly uses original sources anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist organization

The editor User:Kslotte who violated the multimple revert rules and other rules has now been blocked. However, there is still no material on the page about the well-documented ties of the the IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı) to Islamist ideas and sponsorship/advocacy of violence. Here is some documentation:

The Daily Telegraph suggested that the IHH is "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency", however conceded that these "claims remain controversial"[1]

According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [1]Broad Wall (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More could be added, but surely omitting such information from this article is a gross violation of NPOV.Broad Wall (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry on IHH. According to a International Studies Danish Institute research [3], the IHH had ties with Islamist armed groups such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda, and was even caught storing weapons and bomb-making instructions in its HQ in Istanbul, in a 1997 police raid. So describing it as a radical Islamist group is correct, although harder labels could also fit. MathKnight 07:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it would be important to keep in mind that Hamas (as opposed to only its military wing) is considered to be a terrorist organisation by a few countries, most of which are staunch allies of Israel. Mshahidil (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b [1], Gaza flotilla: the Free Gaza Movement and the IHH , Telegraph, Richard Spencer, 31 May 2010.

Claims of previous boardings in international waters

Alan Dershowitz claims [4] in Huffington Post that "the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security". He does not give much more detail. A commentor in HP provided a link to WP article SS Exodus, where there is a similar case: civilian ship, international waters, boarded by soldiers, civilian deaths. I wonder if this is not relevant as background? At first I added a "see also" [5], but it was reverted [6] by Licory. Any thoughts? — fnielsen (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any one other than Alan making the connex? Cause this might be a little too a flock of seagulls for our taste if the RS aren't delivering...--Cerejota (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the SS Exodus doesn't seem that similar to this case. It was over 50 years ago, things have changed significantly since then and if I understand the article correctly, it wasn't trying to run a blockade but deliver immigrants unwanted and unwelcome by the people (the British) who had control over the territory they were trying to go to, said people of course being the ones who boarded it. Boarding ships trying to deliver illegal immigrants isn't of course particularly uncommon even nowadays although I'm not sure if it usually occurs in international waters (many of the ships probably lack registration and other things which probably changes the legal situation anyway). Unless I missed something, the people in defacto control of Gaza had no problem with the people or goods in the ship arriving at Gaza, and they definitely weren't the ones who boarded it. So it isn't that surprising few sources have picked it up as a similar case. Perhaps there are better examples. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Similair" is relative definition. I see both Sol Phryne and SS Exodus are the most similar cases available (that we know off). SS Exodus was seized like Gaza flotilla. Sol Phryne had the same type of political drama as Gaza flotilla (but a different approach and outcome). I propose both links should be added back with well written description after. --Kslotte (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This only compares to that boarding last year or in 2008 or MAYBE with those two ships from Iran that Israel seized and carried tons of rockets and whatnot. Metallurgist (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activists vs Passengers

Large replacement of 'Passengers' with 'Activists'. Sources I have checked say 'Passengers'. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=365522068&oldid=365520659 -- Firefishy (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC

I strongly oppose this. In cases where the wording would include journalists and other non-activists the word "passengers" is appropriate. But otherwise, it seems like whitewashing POV. The people were not just uninvolved passengers on a trip from X to Y, they were very clearly activists in the midst of a political mission. It's like referring to IDF soldiers navy ships as 'passengers'. Can this be reverted? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Bob here unless someone can give a good reason as to why they should be called activists. There were lots of different people on the boats, some activists, some press, crew, and some children. To blanket them all with the 'activist' moniker doesn't seem neutral. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one approach is to just use the term used in the specific source used to provide WP:V compliance for the specific statement i.e. just say what the source says but for the love of puppies can we make sure that the sourcing of this article isn't skewed with disproportionate use of Israeli media sources as is normally the case in articles like this ? It's a big planet with many RS and excessive use of sourcing from one country (albeit quite a diverse country media-wise) never helps with NPOV compliance. I personally favour using 'people' rather than 'passengers' when we don't know what/who they were. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I normally agree with you in the use of 'people' but in this case I think 'passengers' is a more accurate description. Otherwise it might get confusing which people are being referred to, the soldiers or the passengers. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zuchinni, my real point was that I think to maintain neutral POV, we need to be as specific as possible. In any cases where it may include non-activists, the word "passengers" should be used. But in cases where we are clearly speaking about people on a political mission, the word "activist" really should to be used. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Bob.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interview with the captain thrown from the ship's deck

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897486,00.html (and the hebrew version)

'I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below'

(this is the quote from the main paragraph)


Note: there are already videos showing there were shooters from the ship like this one from idf's spokesperson youtube channel

Here's another interview, from Haaretz [7] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Haaretz and IDF are biased sources and cannot meet NPOV standards. Because they may censor the part and broadcast only the moments they want for propoganda .
* btw it is very natural activist don't want to let any soldier onto their ships. Because they were on international waters and no nation including Israel have the right to stop them. So please mention also that what Israel did is a piracy Yakamoz51 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is not acceptable. You can't disqulifies a reliable news source only because it is Israeli (I don't think you will disqualify automatically Palestinian or Turkish sources, right?). The Israeli press is a free press and Haaretz, for example, has pro-Palestinian views, while Yediot Aharonot/Ynet and Maariv are more balanced. IDF videos were broadcast in news media throughout the world (such as BBC [8]). BBC, CNN and others would not broadcast the videos if they think the videoes were not reliable. MathKnight 07:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HaAretz is accepted as a RS by Wikipedia, and is in fact cited as a source in this very article. Re. your legal claims, these are obviously hotly disputed. However, I think it is generally accepted that aid workers should not engage in combat against forces involved in the local conflict. If you can show an example of this happening in another place in the world (plenty of aid volunteers in Africa and other war-torn countries, I believe) your claim would have more validity. 212.179.152.69 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were not inside that local conflict, but on international waters, that is a very important point. About the sources, it's not the goal of Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong: we have to write "X said that..." and "Y said that" if they are notable enough, and not based on their affiliation. If there is a notable source that claims that it's not true, then feel free to add "Y said they believe X lied" and not just simply "X lied". --131.188.3.21 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see as usual that the external links section is turning into an advocacy link farm. External links need to comply with WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE and the selection of links mustn't skew the neutrality of the article. Can I suggest that all of the MFA video links are replaced with a single link to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs site which includes most if not all of these videos i.e. this one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea based on consolidation alone.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with both of you. Good idea! Zuchinni one (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with myself, I'm just saying... It's also better because the MFA site puts them in context and presents them as part of a narrative whereas listing them by themselves does the opposite. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... all this focus on NPOV sickens me :). Seriously, go for itCptnono (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It took out a few other links, disembarkation (snooze) and aid transfer (oh come on!). I hope the MFA will set up a better link in due course to take people to a collection of all the pertinent material. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Kasaalan replaced all the links and I have added a link on his talkpage for him to come here and discuss his revert. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided doesn't even opening. Gives 404 error. Kasaalan (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link does seem open and is the hub of all links and it imo a lot better and policy compliant that all the youtube links. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is it does not open directly. I can reach it via 3rd party sites. I will check if it is about my computer settings or IDF only lets some countries to access data. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it is not my computer settings. If you create a webcite it may be acceptable. But if the link is not global, it isn't helpful much. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links working good and You tube links are actually recommended to avoid. Much better to have one hub link that multiple you tube links. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with 2 more friends, link is uncaccessable to certain parts of the world. I can access via proxy, but not useful at all for rest of the users. Kasaalan (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also we may keep separate IDF videos with titles in notes section as 1st hand video evidence, instead external links. If you still like to remove use hide feature. Kasaalan (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccessible from where? You tube is inaccesable from many places also. I don't support your edit at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section (unlike the preceding support section) is vague in or entirely lack actual reasoning on why the actions should be legal or illegal. There are too many entries just repeating each other. Many entries do not appear to actually constitute a (qualified) legal opinion at all, but just a negative opinion using references to legality. A prime example is the very beginning of the section:

Richard Falk, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that “Israel is guilty of shocking behavior by using deadly weapons against unarmed civilians on ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".

Cut out the non-legal opinions, reduce the actual legal opinions to a representative sub-set, and give their actual reasoning as to why the actions should be considered illegal.

As the section currently reads, it has near to no informational value, and only serves to give an image of "Many more people disagree than agree with the Israelis; ergo the Israelis are wrong", which simply is not encyclopedically acceptable. 88.77.182.69 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the slightly pertinent fact that Falk is a professor of international law, I think the whole section, pro and con is the usual drivel people crowbar into these articles to push the partisan views they like. It reduces the quality of the article and provides a platform for opinionated advocacy. In my view something along the lines of the statement from the Washington Post is enough for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison/sanity check, have a look at the way the BBC covers the legality of the raid in their legality infobox without the drama/advocacy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't disagree more. Give me both sides' quality-reducing dramatic opinionated advocacy drivel every time over dogmatic assertions which may not give a full view of both sides and help the reader think for himself. There's a natural and unavoidable progression to such sections - they become bloated enough eventually that everyone agrees that they must be carefully cut by consensus.John Z (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come no one looks into the fact that this was in The Economic Exclusive Zone of Israeli waters, and hence not the high seas. There are clear differences. In stead a lot of "experts" claim International waters, but that is after the 200 nm limit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.47.81 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background section: Too much History?

I'm not sure that the background section is the right place for such a detailed account of the political history leading up to the blockade. While the history is relevant it might be better to have a short sentence and a link to another wikipedia article with further details.

I am not going to make any edits to the background, but this seems like something that should be discussed as it's getting quite long as of this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365588288

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is fine, except that it should be split into two. We need to tell the reader the basics (Hamas/Gaza/de facto and why/intl view/blockades and why/attempts to breach blockades). Other stuff is really not so much background as preparations and specifics of this event. I'll try to figure out how to split them--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I made the change, per this talk page, and some user reverted it without reading. In short, we have an "Events leading up to" section. That's where some of the material now in "background" belongs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section should refer primarily to the intentions and rationale for both the flotilla heading Gaza and the Israeli Army objecting this. The Palestinian Civil War and the Gaza Blockade are covered in extension in their respective articles, so it is not needed to explain this at lenght in here. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with IANVS here. The background seems to just be covering far too much information that, while related, is not directly the background of the event. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? I know you've only been around for 300-something edits, so you may not be familiar with wikipedia articles, but that's certainly not inappropriate background for an article of this length. It's exactly what the RSs provide as background. Readers are entitled to know the answer to "why", and the background is more important to that than ... say ... the country flags in the article (and takes up about the same space).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just point people to the information that already exists elsewhere in wikipedia and focus on the background for this specific event here. That does three things: 1) gives easy access to the background information 2) lets users read the article without having to sift through tons of history of the I-P conflict. 3) keeps wikipedia easier to edit by not requiring editors to watch and update the same information across multiple articles. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of this. There is too much information to put forward a coherent, accurate account of the historical context. Mshahidil (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OH NOES HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! Childrens: there is a reason why "see also" templates exist. I have to start spanking naughty behinds? Behave...--Cerejota (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Childrens"? There is a reason dictionaries exist. And spell-check. And as to some of the "no" voters, there is a reason that sock rules exist. And as to Cerjota, there is a reason that "Background" sections exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

marvelous

Our article and the lead says the following or thereabouts

  • Rejecting the offer, organizer Greta Berlin stated: "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians"
  • AFP reported [9]

"We are taking 10,000 tonnes of material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza," Berlin said. The cargo included water filtration units, pre-fabricated homes and crayons for children, she added. "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians," she said.

Seems a bit different. We're kind of losing a bit of context. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how. The context is right there in the article -- as the AFP reported, this was a response by Berlin to why she was not accepting the Israeli offer to deliver the supplies to Ashdod, and let them be delivered overland. That's the relevant context, and it is reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with sean here. This might be OK to add ... but not in the lead. Background section seems more appropriate. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was part of a response by Berlin to why she was not accepting the Israeli offer to deliver the supplies to Ashdod, and let them be delivered overland. It was the part that left out the part about how it's 10,000 tonnes of material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza including water filtration units, pre-fabricated homes and crayons for children. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that ALL of the aid was banned? I hadn't heard that before. I only heard that some of the aid included items banned by Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Various items are banned and they change in somewhat non-transparent way. There was a recent legal case about it which I'm not sure anyone has incorporated into the pertinent articles yet. See 'Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case' for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever we do, it strikes me that we should reflect in the lede: 1) what the organizers said they were seeking to deliver; 2) the offer to deliver the materials overland, 3) the rejection of that offer, and 4) the statement by the organizer as to the purpose (which, obviously, in material and not completely intuitive, and explains the rejection of the offer). All is key to the incident, and the four paras we are allotted in the lede should accommodate them. I'm happy for Sean to try his hand at reflecting #1 if he feels it is not done sufficiently. But by no means whatsoever can the organizer's statement of the avowed purpose of the flotilla -- especially when it is other than what might be assumed -- be considered innappropriate for the lede and relegated to "background" ... it is clearly key to the story, and takes but a sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of Free Gaza being more concerned with the PR side of things than actually delivering aid is well documented. I personally see this quote as almost verifying it for this operation. However, the context is a little vague the way that writer did it. Although I like the line to a certain extent, it might be better for the reader and editors to simply find another quote. Comes across a little SYNTHY on the writer's part who doesn't have to deal with NPOV. Maybe it isn't... I just can't tell. Israel saying it was primarily a provocation would be something that might fit in the lead but that would be touchy and have to be handled with caution. Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was to be included the wording should change. Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin rejected Israel's offer to deliver the humanitarian aid, stating, "It's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians". However I'm still not sure it belongs in the lead. In the meantime I'll reword it. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that's not correct. The point of why she isn't allowing it to be delivered overland is that, as she says, its not about the aid. Why would you seek to censor that out? It's like an editor with an opposite POV eliminating the other half of the sentence. The full sentence is "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians". Provide further context if necessary, but don't POV cherry-pick out the key provision.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I agree with all 3 of you mostly. It seems to me though Berlin is saying that it's a) about breaking the blockade because b) Israel won't deliver the material (allegedly). We need to capture the whole thing somehow. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sean, I'm OK w/capturing more (I expect -- I trust you to try your hand at that). I think deleting what she said smells to censorish. It's clearly key. As to what she meant by that, that would be synth, but my understanding from the context was a bit different. I also happen to know a bit about her, so that is my further background. She doesn't believe there should be borders anywhere in the world between nations. So what she describes as a "siege" naturally rankles her. She wants to break it, because it is an extreme manifestation of what she is politically against. That is more important than item-delivery. (I think, btw, she also said, jokingly I believe, that she was an anti-semite because of one of her husbands, who was Jewish). The only material that I am aware of that they said they had which Israel said would be a problem was the concrete, from what I've seen. But her issue, as suggested by her statement (at least how I read it), is that its not about the aid, and whether it gets there, but about breaking down blockade -- even if she were assured all material would get through, I don't think she would have agreed, from what I've read of her in the past.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to censor anything ... they both have the same meaning to me, one is just shorter and thus seems more appropriate. The lead not about giving all the details, but a good summary. I'm still not sure the quote should be included at all. But I'm open to changes in both wording and inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean I'm not clear where part 'b' came from in your analysis above. It seems she's not concerned with whether or not the aid will be delivered at all ... just breaking the blockade. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zuch--I agree with your last point. I don't think you can convey that without the first part of that sentence. It's the one thing we have from an organizer as to the avowed purpose of the flotilla, which is obviously key to this article. And given the different interpretations even on this talk page, I think those few words deserve to be quoted. If others feel further context is needed, that's fine (I'm not sure it is).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you know here Epeefleche, but my interactions with her here on Wikipedia left much to be desired. I also feel it is about making a point and not the aid with them. This has been pretty clear in the past. It should be easy enough to find a line in the press that says that. It might be worth seeing if an alternative is available just to make this crystal clear (if it is the case of course).Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I wasn't too tied to the wording, just wanted to keep it as short as possible. I'll add back in the It's not about delivering humanitarian aid part, but the over land/sea stuff is just extraneous. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not looked at this discussion. I have no objection to summarising the background of the events in the lead; but if you are mentioning Israel's offer and Berlin's rejection, you should also mention why it was rejected. The sentence "Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin rejected Israel's offer to deliver ..." should be modified to Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin had rejected the offer saying that the cargo "includes material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza". Of course one can then insert the reason for blockade as well; there is no end to it. If the first paragraph is about what happened on 31 May 2010 in the international waters, "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast." is a better, accurate and NPOV description; trying to insert Israel's earlier offer in the very first paragraph seems like an attempt to justify the Israeli action. Walky-talky (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- The point is (I think ) that when both parties say 'aid' they are talking about different things and that is the problem. Israel says it will deliver the 'aid' (conveniently not mentioning the giant and hilarious exclusion list = my point b i.e. the many items that aren't allow in) and the activists say Israel won't deliver the 'aid' (conveniently not mentioning the thousands of tonnes of material that isn't on the exclusion lists that they do allow through). And we are stuck in the middle trying to figure out how not to turn Wiki into a care facility for neutrality agnosia sufferers in the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you disagree with the current wording? If so I'm totally open to suggestions. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the article would move at least one step towards neutrality if, in the first paragraph, we just say what happened instead of why it happened. It is true that flotilla rejected the offer; in fact "The flotilla organizers described Israel’s suggestion of sending the aid to Gaza through official Israeli channels as “both ridiculous and offensive. Their blockade, their ‘official channels,’ is what is directly causing the humanitarian crisis in the first place,” the organizers’ statement said."[[10]] But this (and all other offers/ reasoning) should be given, in later paragraphs, in the context.
Given that the purpose of the article is to discuss the raid, perhaps this would be better placed later in the article. The rejection is already mentioned when "the flotilla refused to change course". But I'm not feeling strongly about it either way. What I am strongly against is letting the Lead turn into lots of blurbs and quotes.
Also, who put in the statement above mine? No signature ... Zuchinni one (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zuchinni one, I'm not that fussed but I'm with Walky-talky, 'if you are mentioning Israel's offer and Berlin's rejection, you should also mention why it was rejected.' (in the article body). I'm not convinced that truncated quotes and complex he said/she said belong in the lead. I'd prefer to the keep the lead simple and non-contentious for a while. Epee, interesting about "She doesn't believe there should be borders anywhere in the world between nations.", me neither. I find it's really quite inconvenient not having a diplomatic passport. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... this quote has been undergoing a bit of an edit war anyway. I wasn't really thrilled with it to begin with. I think the best thing to do is to remove it for now from the lead, unless there is a consensus as to how it should be added. However I think the Israeli offer to deliver the aid that was not banned should remain. Because this was a direct part of the events ... where as the Greta Berlin quote came prior to the ships leaving (from what I understand). Also Israel made the offer to deliver the aid Just Prior to the boarding. So I think it should remain. However it might be worthwhile to link to a list of banned items ... I looked for one before but couldn't find it. As a matter of fact I made this suggestion here before as well and can't find that either. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it from the lead is fine by me. Note also the quote below. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
regarding "However it might be worthwhile to link to a list of banned items ... I looked for one before but couldn't find it.". There isn't one officially available as far as I know. That's the root of this hullabaloo, the decision procedures regarding what gets in, how much gets in and when it gets in aren't public and aren't influenced by the requests from the aid suppliers or the requirements on the ground...allegedly, so reliable sources say...etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also have this source that is directly in the context of the discussion: [11]

The Israeli government said it would allow humanitarian aid on the flotilla into Gaza through its normal channels. An IDF spokesman said the vessels "refused to comply with an invitation to come to Ashdod port where they could transfer aid into the Gaza strip." 'Audrey Bomse, legal advisor to the Free Gaza Movement, told CNN the group did not believe the Israelis would let the cargo into Gaza and that the cargo also included reconstruction aid which Israel does not allow into Gaza'

--DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Here is the current quote and all the intact references so that it can be easily added again if needed.
Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin rejected Israel's offer to deliver the humanitarian aid, stating, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians".[1][2][3]
Zuchinni one (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this fuss just because sb insists that the offer Israel made when Free Gaza movement declared its intention to go ahead with flotilla ( but not the occupation, not the humanitarian situation in Gaza, not the repeated appeal of the international community to lift the blockade) should be mentioned in the very first paragraph. This article is primarily about what happened and not why it happened. The lead now is trying to say that Israel offered a solution ( to whatever it is) but flotilla rejected and thus this raid happened. This is not a neutral description of the events. Walky-talky (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's preposterous. The purpose of the flotilla, as stated by an organizer, is not relevant -- and Walky-talky, with 99 edits to his name, Zuchinni, with 391 edits, DoostarWKP, with 109 edits, are the ones driving this discussion? Will a sysop kindly take a look at this? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the complement Epeefleche, I had not noticed that I was driving this discussion. Anyway, let me repeat what I have to say ( with my history of 99+ edits) and I hope you will have some better argument other than edit counts. Did I say "The purpose of the flotilla, as stated by an organizer" , is what is relevant here? What is relevant here is what happened. There is a long history to it. There is the Hamas take over of Gaza, there is the declaration of the blockade by Israel, there is the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, there is the Free Gaza movement and its attempt to draw attention to this situation, there is the Israeli attempts to avoid this and there is the Free Gaza movement decision to go ahead with its mission. Each of these parties have their own reasons, version and all these are worth mentioning in this article, with due weight and in context. All these events happened before the Flotilla set sail. The first paragraph of this article is about what happened on 31 May 2010 in the international waters. There is no need to mention the reasoning given by various involved parties in the first paragraph itself. It can be given in the chronological order later. That is why I reverted to "The activists were planning to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast." Why is it not neutral? ( is it because I had only less than 100 edits?) The Israeli offer to deliver the goods through the port of Ashdod happened before flotilla started its sail. It should be mentioned in the 'Events leading up to the raid' section. Israeli forces may have repeated this offer at the seas as well. But the only source to it is a primary source, that too Youtube. All reliable sources mention this offer as it happened before flotilla set sail; while Israel was making efforts to avoid this situation.( a situation which will draw attention to its blockade of Gaza). Mentioning this in the first paragraph is not neutral and is certainly misleading. If this is neutral, then you can expect neutral version like "The activists were planning to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which resulted in what aid agencies described as one of the worst humanitarian crisis they have witnessed and was trying to deliver essential humanitarian supplies, banned by Israel."Walky-talky (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole quote - with the "carrying 10,000..." context, should be in the article somewhere - perhaps the background section is best suited. Prodego talk 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Activists state that they would not resort to violence if boarded?

The article says that the Activists had stated beforehand that they would not resort to violence if boarded. This is sourced to: "Up to 16 killed as Israeli forces storm aid convoy" , but this source doesn't say anything of the kind, and I can't seem to find a source that does say it. 132.65.16.64 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this: http://www.nrg.co.il/images/news1/filo-bilgi-dosyasi_en.pdf It does not say that the activists would not resort to violence if boarded. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them shot in the passengers' heads

Iara Lee, a Brazilian filmmaker who was also on the Mavi Marmara: "All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people. We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/02/gaza-flotilla-raid-gunfire-ship-blood

--Nevit (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That story makes me believe them even less. Excellent find though. There has been a lot of reports sourcing Israel so this is great. I don't know what to do with some of the quotes since they contradict video footage. It is great to have the other perspective though.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We still don't know what happened right before the stab footage, there is some footage of Israelis already standing on the ship, with no indication of when it is. See beginning here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_A0Dhx3VKM&feature=player_embedded FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk in case you've been wandering here is security cam footage preior to boarding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

In response to the unsigned comment above, the video footage you linked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU) is completely fake. The most obvious problem with this footage is that it is not moving as a boat should in the middle of the ocean. In fact it is not moving at all, leading me to believe that it was filmed on a staged set. The 'Israeli Commando' that supposedly rappels up the side of the ship half-way through video is never shown and, the commandos arrived by way of helicopters, They did not climb up the sides of the ship. Also, the 'water' shown at the end of the video is either animated or it is just a blue sheet being blown by a fan, however, it is certainly not real. Sam H 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italia.hill77 (talk • contribs)
Sounds like WP:OR to me. Do you have any proof this is fake? Boarding parties dont just board the ship from one direction. Metallurgist (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the silly claim above: 1)All security footage from the clip can be easily verified with the insurance company which records the data on external source. 2)Faces are clearly visable and can be easily varified. 3)Security Camera mounted ON BOARD no reason for it to move (See also "steady cam"). 4)Shayetet did come up from the sea as clearly shown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24 5)It is obviously impossible to board the ship from the sea as you are UNARMED while climbing the attached ladder and being hit by: Sling shots,chairs,broken bottle,silverware etc. 6)the frame rate is a bit funny but an amatuer editor of SFX could easliy spot this and use better tracking/stockfootage depends on method Blame it on Kubrik (;

persons, passenger or activists?

Not all people who took a part/were killed/were injuried at the flotilla were peace-activists (some were journilists). And Not all people who took a part/were killed/were injuried at the flotilla were passenger (some were crew members). Therefor, maybe the use phrases "activists" and "passengers" should be replcae with something else? (some parts of the article reffer to them simply as "persons"). ShalomOlam (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IFJ Condemns Gaza Attack and Demands International Inquiry after Reports of Media Casualties

IFJ Condemns Gaza Attack and Demands International Inquiry after Reports of Media Casualties

http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/ifj-condemns-gaza-attack-and-demands-international-inquiry-after-reports-of-media-casualties#e16c53924797f75e336ce81899b11d61

--Nevit (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz is the only reliable source that governs victims number?

nice propaganda move. real classy. --Leladax (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference with victims number between Haaretz and other sources? ShalomOlam (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean ? What's up with Haaretz ? It's hard to think of an RS off hand that publishs so much material critical of various Israeli government policies. Is that the issue ? It's an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Haaretz is often accused of publishing pro-palestinian views. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is responsible

The decision to go ahead with the operation was taken collectively by the "group of seven", the inner security council, whose members include Barak, Meridor, the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as the prime minister, Binjamin Netanyahu.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-flotilla-raid-fiasco-gaza

--Nevit (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "responsible" is POV. One can argue that the MV Mavi Marmara's Captain is responsible, since he tried to break the blockade, and refused to escort Israel Navy into the port of Ashdod. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear in article that who ordered the Israel army to attack the ships in international waters. If the decision to attack was made by military authorities or civil authorities. It should also be clear that who ordered or gave permission to open fire on civilians. These questions are far more fundamental than if they had sticks or they did not obey Israel in international waters. --Nevit (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FM Davutoğlu called the incident as "State Terror" seeing the politicians as those who are responsible. If the Israel agree on an independent international study it would be more clear that who is responsible. But it seems hard from Israel's previous records.

--Nevit (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that whatever the activists did as a response was legit, since they were boarded in international waters. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not here we can't. We can cite reliable sources that say that, but analysis by us as to whether the response - or even the raid itself - was legitimate/illegal/any-other-adjective is original research. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, I know, simply presenting Shalom with a hypothetical opposing view to his own. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was directed at both of you, who should by now both know better. Maybe continue the discussion on your talk pages? I'd hope you both know about WP:NOTAFORUM too, but seeing as you're both having a forum-y discussion...TFOWRidle vapourings 11:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you. I was just illustrating why "responsible" is not the right word to use here. It is not used by the Guardian, and it is Nevit's opinion. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The group of seven" are no inner security council. They are seven ministers, who were authorized by the governmet (all 30 ministers) to make executive decisions in the name of the governmet, on issues (mostly security issues) that can't wait until the next weekly governmet meeting. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "Group of seven" are: Binjamin Netanyahu, defence minister Ehud Barak, foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yishai, Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, a minister without portfolio. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel PM Defends Deadly Raid on Aid Convoy http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel-PM-Defends-Deadly-Raid-on-Aid-Convoy-95435204.html --Nevit (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny claim in the Background section

"It provides humanitarian relief around the globe, but has also been accused of providing support to al-Qaeda and Jihadist insurgencies in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other locales."

The source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7790919/Gaza-flotilla-the-Free-Gaza-Movement-and-the-IHH.html 1- "Israeli authorities claimed that the group is "sympathetic to al-Qaeda"." 2- "But they accuse it of overtly supporting Hamas, designated as a terrorist group by both the United States and the European Union, and also of being in contact with al-Qaeda cells and with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq."

In the source, no Israeli authorities accuse the IHH of "providing support to al-Qaeda and Jihadist insurgencies in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other locales." 211.25.207.22 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claim removed. Thanks. --IANVS (talk | cont) 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please take in account this 2006 report from the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) an independent research institution which was was established by an act of the danish Parliament and therefore is a serious souce. On this report, the author citing counter terrorist french judge Jean-Louis Bruguière also mention some ties of the IHH with Al Qaeda and jihadist movements.--Kimdime (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File cannot be found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.34.117 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worked for me. Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the claim of the blockade being legal under the Geneva convention claim, as in the Gaza blockade article sources state that Israel claims that the Geneva convention does not apply as Gaza is not a sovereign nation. The source is also an Australian newspaper and it is confusing whether the statement is based on fact or is an opinion of the journalist. Also the journalist does declare an interest, so may not be entirely neutral Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Israel says Geneva doesnt apply there, that does not make the boarding actions illegal. Theres no law regarding non-state entities. Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz"

Israeli journalist Joshua Brenner, of Walla! internet portal, which was present on the IDF ship's bridge reports: in reply to IDF's order to stop the flotilla ships replied "Go back to Auschwitz" and "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!" Source in Hebrew:

על התדר הפתוח, יכלו כל ספינות המשט לשמוע את האזהרות. והן גם דאגו להחזיר. "תחזרו לאושוויץ", ענתה ספינה אחת, אחרת השיבה ב"ג'יהאד, ג'יהאד, ג'יהאד". המפגש האלים היה בלתי נמנע.
translation: "Over the open frequency band all the flotilla ships could hear the warnings. And they replied. "Go back to Auschwitz", one ship answered, another one replied with "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad". The violent clash was inevitible."

Joshua Brenner, מיוחד - כתב וואלה! עם כוחות השייטת בלב ים (Special: Walla! reporter with naby forces in the heart of the sea"), Walla!, 1.6.2010 and ref [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So should be the impression that this confirm that Israel government official on press conferences lie to journalist. The wording what was communicate between aid caring ships and IDF navy differ substantially. Ai 00 (talk)
The New York Daily News has repeated her account.[12] Maybe she is not telling the truth. Maybe Greta Berlin is not. Good thing it isn;t for us to decide.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV editing

Issue raised with editor on talk page, no need to single-out editors here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it me or is this user unaware of policy regarding reliability? --- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you. TFOWR left a message on their talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks :) --- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have mentioned this at the time - I collapsed this section. I had already (as noted above by Sean.hoyland) raised the issue with the editor in question. I don't think we should be naming individual editors here. Incidentally, if anyone does want to discuss a concern about an individual editor prior to discussing with that editor, I'd be happy to chat about it first. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Czech reaction

President of the Czech Senate Přemysl Sobotka said: "The flotilla was a planned provocation designed to drag Israel into a trap. Many in the European community think like me, but are afraid to express their position publicly". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/115/283.html ShalomOlam (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A full translation would be lovely. I dont know much Hebrew or how Wikipedia deals with translations. Metallurgist (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[13] Got it Metallurgist (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be closed from further editing until NPOV is reached

everytime i check the article, it reads pro-palestinian and any attempt to change that is blocked or reverted back.

though on youtube, IDF's spokesperson youtube page is an RS (since it's an official channel of the IDF) but is completely ignored.

also everytime someone mentions Haaretz, Ynet or other israeli news sources, they immediately get a respone of Not NPOV source, and though they are used, most of the details are pro-palestinian, e.g: i gave this article interviewing the israeli captain that was thrown from the deck, but any reference to it, quotes were not added.

why claims that the soldiers shot first were added but the israeli side is unwritten?

This article is clearly without NPOV, the discussions here proof that.

i also used google translate to check other languages, and in some cases this article gets pro-palestinian approch in different languages without neutrality what so ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- I also think there is a problem but it cuts both ways. We probably need a few editors with time to file edit warring 1RR reports or ANI reports for editors who repeatedly break mandatory policies. It's a thankless task though. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New video released showing the activists waiting with cold weapons

If I'm not mistaken the activists main claim was that they got attacked first and the weapons were only picked and used as self defense and they were not waiting with weapons.
New IDF video, I guess it was recorded by someone on board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24
Shows the activists throw a stun grenade at the navy boat, and waiting with bats and chains.Faaaaaaamn (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video does not show whether they were fired on before. And again, this other video shows Israelis aboard the ship in the beginning, apparently before the clash itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_A0Dhx3VKM&feature=player_embedded 12:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Security cam prior to attack shows armed protestors prepare a plan of attack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

Israeli Egyptian blockade?

Is this article about the events happened subsequent to the attempt by the Free Gaza Movement to break through the naval blockade imposed by Israel and deliver humanitarian goods directly to Gaza? As far as I know, there is no naval blockade imposed by Egypt and there has not been any attempt by the Free Gaza Movement to break Egypt's closure of its border with Gaza. Then why is an Egyptian blockade mentioned in the lead? I had reverted it once but someone has reverted me. Please remove it or justify your edit. Walky-talky (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives details, though it doesn't specify the naval blockade, just the blockade in general. I believe, though I'm definitely not certain, that Egypt has temporarily lifted their blockade of Gaza following this incident. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walky -- I have a question. Have you ever edited under another name? As to your question, the blockade has three sides -- two land, and one sea. One of the land sides is Egyptian. (obviously, if any of those sides opens up, the blockade is ineffective).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, airspace. But this article concerns a challenge to the naval blockade. RomaC (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt opening the Rafah crossing is a notable event that happened as a direct consequence of the raid/clash. It's a big deal. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Sean. And with the first part of what RomaC said (of course, underground too ... but that is included in the land blockade).--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little like trying to make reality reflect Wikipedia, by linking to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade article in the lead. RS on this event are clear that the GFF was challenging the Israeli blockade. Two if by land, one if by sea ;) Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision of Egypt to close its borders with the Gaza (which is not landlocked ) because it does not recognise the authority of Hamas is worth discussing in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. (Its decision to open its border is worth mentioning in the Aftermath section here.) What is relevant here is that Israel has declared a naval blockade of Gaza, says it is justified and legal, Free Gaza Movement declared that its mission is about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians, Free Gaza Movement went ahead and tried to break the Israeli naval blockade and this lead to the Gaza flotilla raid. Do we have any reliable sources ( no WP:SYN please, at least for the lead) saying "The activists were planning to break through the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza" .Walky-talky (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to blockade of Gaza. People can read about it in the linked article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

missing persons

There are no international observers, there was media blackaut and electronic jam personal media confiscation and agency review of personal media. In this environment instead of revile body bag more PRwise is mis a count. It may be also used against Israel but i believe the people on ships where counted before set sail. (what was the number; changing numbers come from Israel). Some reports are aleredy[14]. Do anybody opose to put new section =Missed persons= or is to early? Ai 00 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activist Bios and Goals

I haven't seen these people added to the list of participants:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4265.htm - "The Egyptian flotilla delegation included two members of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the Egyptian parliament: Muhammad Al-Baltaji and Hazem Farouq."
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/6841211/__Hollandse_Hamasleider_was_erbij__.html&sl=nl&tl=en - "Rashed is the leader of Hamas in the Netherlands," said one intelligence source. Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the dead dreamt of becoming martyrs: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898109,00.html
Some of the detainees went there specifically to attack soldiers - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897667,00.html
Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-- This part seem unrelated at all

I changed the section title a bit to make it more clear. Hope that's okay.
It's unquestionably POV since it's statements attributed to Israel so that needs to be made clear. But according to their questioning of the activists, it seems that a large block of them were specifically planning before the trip even departed to attack Israeli soldiers. "... some 100 people infiltrated the peace and humanitarian aid activists making their way to Gaza, with the explicit design to attack Israeli soldiers using cold arms."
This definitely seems relevant and important. Where and how should it be added? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only acourding to israeli media - see here: [15] Eldudarino (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how it all began...

If the background section is not brought under control, this what we will have to include.

What part of "hyperlinked encyclopedia" don't y'all (good faith, civi) recentist need explanation about? The part that there are dozens of articles that already provide background to which we can link?

Also, make sure to RS the background. Some of it seems like it belongs with a flock of seagulls.--Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]


Hey now ... that's NOT FAIR ... there is substantial evidence that the universe actually began when a small pocket of subspace from another universe was pinched off. If we're going to include the big bang we have to include the context. Cerejota, your bias is evident and I don't think you should be a part of this discussion. :P Zuchinni one (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva slammed Israel

Turkey's Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva slammed Israel on Tuesday over the deadly results of the Navy raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, accusing the Jewish state of engaging in an unnecessary provocation and inappropriate behavior.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898025,00.html

--Nevit (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like 'be careful' than slammed and considering what he is surrounded by, he might have been "forced" to say it, but were not really here to judge that part. Metallurgist (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is getting too long

The lead is getting too long. IMHO, third and forth sections about reaction should be moved and lead will only contain the basic facts. --Kslotte (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people were looking for a list of banned items. This article on the BBC from May throws some light on this topic. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Bilgen heart attack?

[16] What source says this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all IDF photo unless it is approved by a independent source

I believe that in a situation like this any IDF source is not reliable:

  • It might be completely fabricated photo or video.
  • In a photo caption in the article it says: "A snapshot of footage from the boat allegedly showing an Israeli soldier being beaten. Source: IDF footage"
  • How do you know that which one is soldier and which one is activist. Let's rely on IDF and assume activist was beating; In that case that beating might be because of a self-defense in a clash. We don't know what happened even one second ago of that photo.
Agree. IDF is an army accused of the incident. IDF sources by the best guess are biased by selection, if not biased by fabrication. IDF jammmed all communication so that no independent photo video source was available. IDF also collected all photo video devices and mobile phones of passengers, journalists and activists. --Nevit (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The account of the IDF is essential to understanding the incident. Nobody is claiming the IDF is the final arbiter of truth on the issue. By your logic, we would have to discount any testimony provided by people on the Gaza flotilla. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IDF has blocked access to independent sources of information creating a state of unbalanced knowledge. So I have to disagree with you. Israel Blocks Access to Flotilla Press: http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/israel-blocks-access-to-flotilla-press-and-participants/ --Nevit (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Nevit: Do you have any knowlege or evidence that the IDF have ever fabricated anyt photo or video its spokesman has released to the press? ShalomOlam (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I request that the article includes independent photo and videos as much as those prepared by IDF. Since IDF has blocked our access to independent information, using too much of propaganda material released by IDF is not compatible by NPOV. --Nevit (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my previous question. Please read it again. The answer should be either "yes" or "no". ShalomOlam (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is we can not know the answer unless all information is released. You can not say anything by looking at a video in information age. Any kind of editing is possible. We have to look at videos captured by journalists on fleet, photographs, mobile phone records. But that does not change the fact that attack was intentionally ordered by political leaders of the state. Videos will only show how it happened. --Nevit (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was: "Do you have any knowlege or evidence...?". It seems to me you don't. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know since I am denied to know by state of Israel. I propose removing of Israel state's propaganda material. Until we have enough independent information to verify that they are reliable. This is necessary to base article on neutral grounds. --Nevit (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your proposal . I think that photos/videos provided by IDF should be used in the article, but only if the caption will say that IDF is the source, and it will say "IDF claims the photos are of..." instead of writing "The photos are of...". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone willing to see propaganda material can visit the IDF site. We should keep the article neutral. --Nevit (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also delete every single passenger account of the event, since their stories might be fabricated propaganda. (sarcasm, if that wasn't clear enough) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree (with Yakamoz51). Yes, it might be completely fabricated photo or video. But it also might be 100% true. If you write that the photos/videos were provided by IDF, and write "IDF claims the photos are of..." instead of writing "The photos are of..." - then it's okay. ShalomOlam (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Shalom. As long as we qualify the photos I think they are ok. "IDF claims the photos are of..." seems wholly appropriate. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say there is a need for balance. IDF is certainly a reliable primary source for their perspective - that is, if we have sources that say "IDF said X" and then we have an IDF picture that shows "X", then of course they are reliable. So one cannot question them as a primary source. However, we do not deal in primary sources, but on tertiary sources... it is is what these sources tell us where we should have our ears.

It is all in making sure that just because the IDF has put a tight lid on infos, essentially becoming the only primary source on the events, we do not needlessly bias the article towards the IDF perspective. Neutrality, which ultimately stems form balance, has to be preserved and one way to preserve it us by judicious uses of sourced material. Just because you can doesn't mean you have do it. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the IDF is not a neutral party, but it shouldnt take one to realize they are an important part of developing an encyclopedic article - we can neither ignore them, nor make them the sole or dominant voice. All positions that ignore this principle, in my opinion, belong outside of wikipedia, as they obviously do not grasp what we are trying to do here. --Cerejota (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that ALL IDF footage of the clash that I have seen, correlates exactly with all angles from the IDF, and with the footage filmed by the activists. The identification of personnel, in my opinion, is very clear, most notably because the IDF are the ones who come from the helicopter. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF is notorious for outright fabrication of evidence (eg the front cover of "The USS Liberty Incident" is a US picture passed off as an Israeli gun camera picture) and lies (eg denying they used white phosphorus in Lebanon and Gaza). Under such conditions their version may be significant, but only as the excuses of an unreliable defendant. 94.116.26.21 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the captions and clearly stated that photos are released by IDF and they are claiming that. Btw those knives (except one) and tools are all either kitchenhold or plumbing items. Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those knives were used for stabbing the stomach of at least one Israeli soldier, who requiered surgery after that. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to imply that you can't stab someone with a kitchen knife or bludgeon them to death with a wrench? I guess the slingshots are used to deter seagulls from making a mess on the deck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But showing a picture of kitchen knife on the deck hardly implies that it was intended to be used as a weapon against soldier holding a gun. I think IDF sources are biased. They should be removed, or at least, captioned as released by IDF. Holding a pro-Palestine or Pro-Israeli stance in the article loses its credibility. So, additions by Yakamoz51 are correct. --Remukhan (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we use what reliable sources say. This picture has been shown on various RS thus it can be shown in this article, noting that the IDF published it. On a side note, since there's video of passengers stabbing and bludgeoning soldiers (from Turkish TV no less), it is certainly appropriate to show what kind of weapons were found. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it states that source is IDF, I agree with you. I think the issues stands resolved now. --203.112.90.138 (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that IDF as a source is biased. We should refrain from using any source from pro-Palestine or pro-Israel source. The article is full of either extreme right now. --Remukhan (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to remain netural as possible but facts brought to light by both sides should be presented without bias. It is wrong to completely remove or reject concrete evidences includng images and videos or caption them in vague language to undermine them even though they present important facts. Moreover most Yakamoz51's comments are clearly showing bias.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if someone try to enter someone's yacht(i.e. a pirate) illegally, He'd use his kitchen knife. And he'd be the first one who attacked also. And no body can accuse him.
BUT, if the pirate is more powerfull at least in media than the yacht owner, Then pirate would say he just want to seize the yacht. He first warned the owner and when owner didn't reply positively he tried to catch the owner and was beated by the him.
And he would release some videos/photos supporting his claim that he is attacked. And some editor's may use it because he is "the primary reliable source" 141.217.43.142 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footages tend to omit negative aspects and promotes positive aspects of the source. So instead removing IDF footage, we should state it is a footage and IDF claims, and provide opposing footage screenshots/claim to balance article by NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The IDF is an authority figure. If we say they are biased, we may as well say all police forces are biased. This, if used in any article, would require a note "Source: LAPD" or whatever the case may be. I know some people in their mind think that Israel lies, but until proven a lie, any countrys official photos and accounts must be accepted as accurate. Metallurgist (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About using IDF as source

How Israel’s MFA FAKED photos of seized weapons http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-how-israels-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-fakes-photos-of-seized-weapons/

Please don't allow the wikipedia to be a used propaganda tool by IDF. Use independent and reliable sources instead. Don't use any photos if they are not verified by independent sources.

--Nevit (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to a blog from an idiot that doesn't realize that Exif info is often wrong because people don't set the internal clocks on their cameras (esp. after changing batteries). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe in belief you will never believe in evidence. --Nevit (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence? There is no evidence that these are fabricated. --Metallurgist (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the IDF is not more and no less POV than the activists. If you wish to remove every bit of info the IDF provides, then we also should strike from the record anything the activists say about what happened. Sorry, but to keep NPOV, we need _both_ sides of the story. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We only have the audiovisual material released by Israel. And eyewitness accounts that Israeli side is continuously trying to discredit by including materials relating them to political, racial and organizational groups. Eyewitness is second degree evidence and audio video material is first degree. Israel has blocked access to audio-visual material acquired by journalists on the mission. We have unverified propaganda material at one hand and second degree evidence at other hand. Israel intentionally and deliberately has created a difficult situation for us to evaluate what happened. --Nevit (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis subdued captain by pointing gun at a child

Israelis subdued captain by pointing gun at a child http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/israelis-subdued-captain-by-pointing-gun-at-a-child-1.636007

--Nevit (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof or evidence to support this? The flotilla was for people 18-60 years only. Is there any proof there were people under 18 years old abord any of the ships? ShalomOlam (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there were children on this boat, their parents are probably insane, irresponsible, or simply fanatics.
In the event there were children on board, it is probable that their parents were fanatics. But, in the event that this news were certain, would any of that excuse pointing a gun to a child? No excuses for that, brother. --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the event isn't certain, nobody needs to excuse it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- It's a WP:REDFLAG. If it's not covered in multiple RS forget it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked at this story yet - I'm getting errors on that link, but as our article reports, many sources reported that there was a mother and a 1-year old child on board the Mavi Marmara, who have been released. e.g. [17] Nothing about pointing a gun there.John Z (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article is deadlink. Metallurgist (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources for gun pointing at child story; they say it is from The Guardian- Guardian story others: [18] [19] [20]. Gulfnews link doesn't work for me, Guardian ones do.John Z (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death(s): At least ten activists

The article states: "Death(s): At least ten activists". This is not true. It is not confirmed that all death(s) are of activists. This should be replced with: "Death(s): At least ten people", until it is clear if all death(s) are of activists or not. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, many of the dead may be activists, but the passengers included aid workers, observers and others who might be described as adventurers/tourists. Or even martyrs. Until Israel releases their names and they've been categorised, they should not be stigmatised 94.116.26.21 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the sources say?--Cerejota (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most major Israeli news reports reffer to these as "nine dead participants (of the flotilla)", or just "nine dead". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources, including the source cited, say that only 9 people died. Why does this number keep being changed to ten on this article? --PiMaster3 talk 15:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if the names and nationalities of those who were killed could be incorporated into the article as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.15.132 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe

The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177279

--Nevit (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US, the Netherlands and Italy voted against International investigation of incident. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e18d2a8a-6e23-11df-ab79-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

--Nevit (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel rejects independent probe calls http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177188

I believe a section on international probe should be present on article.

--Nevit (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli reactions

I've just changed the section heading Israeli augmentations to Israeli reactions. At the moment the section simply states the MFA output. The section should I guess capture the spectrum of reactions from Israeli society/media and maybe human rights groups (although perhaps we should have a separate section for human right s grouops and integrate the Israel based groups in with the rest). Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would belong to International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#Israel, International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#NGOs, or International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#Demonstrations. Regarding the existent topic in this article the Israeli argumentation on its actions is quite pertinent, though. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean specifically by 'That' :) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of 'Israeli argumentation' includes things other than the MFA is my point. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "spectrum of reactions from Israeli society/media and maybe human rights groups" should be at the International reactions article pertinent sections. What should belong in the section here are the official statements regarding the operative, being from MFA et al. as well. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit odd to me in the sense that the MFA isn't Israel. Anyway, so we need sections for statements from both the MFA and the people on the boats in this article if we are to provide equal real estate to the various parties. Since that information won't be forked out to a separate article the prominence of the information may be undue relative to the huge international reaction which seems problematic NPOV compliance-wise. I guess it will work itself out over time. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Sean here ... the current way the Israeli reactions section is done is very NPOV. One quote from a politician who is not the leader does not constitute the Israeli reaction. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean not WP:NPOV. :) To elaborate, if we are just going to have an MFA statement in there it should be integrated into the article rather than be given undue prominence. The MFA shouldn't get it's own section for it's statements unless the activists also get their own section for their statements. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia isn't part of the MFA's web presence, not officially anyway. :) I see someone has added a media reaction summary. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... lol ... yes very non-NPOV Zuchinni one (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal?

Leave maritime law to the lawyers, then cite the sources that quote them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal? If Yes, how many Km's are the limit? --Nevit (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is not/was not blockading international waters. Israel - and Egypt - are blockading Hamas-controlled-Gaza. By land, by air and by sea. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many km's are you allowed to block? You can not block the whole sea? It should be a limit. I am asking for limit. Is there any limit to law or is it limitless? --Nevit (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know. IDF claim that special laws apply here, and since there is an on going war between Israel and Hamas-controlled-Gaza, IDF is allowed to act, even on international waters. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tuesday, 06 January 2009 00:00

Subject: Blockade of Gaza Strip Source : Israeli Navy

All mariners are advised that as of 03 January 2009, 1700 UTC, Gaza maritime area is closed to all maritime trafic and is under blockade imposed by Israeli Navy until further notice. Maritime Gaza area is enclosed by the following coordinates:

31 35.71 N 34 29.46 E 31 46.80 N 34 10.01 E 31 19.39 N 34 13.11 E 31 33.73 N 33 56.68 E [21]

930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Turkey to review all ties with Israel

Turkey's parliament called on the government Wednesday to review all ties with Israel http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177282

--Nevit (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aharonovitch opposes activists' release What are you talking about? Metallurgist (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of International reactions section should be move to that page.

The section is starting to get long again with quotes one way or the other. There is an entire article devoted to this and as you can see in the discussion archive this was done specifically because the section was getting too long.

This section should go back to being a single paragraph, as discussed earlier, which neutrally covers the range of reactions, and directs to the main page. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing a large chunk of content in the international reactions section that already exists in the separate article.

There have been multiple discussions about this:

And there is a complete article for International reactions because the section was getting so long. Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

The removed chunk will be placed here along with sources for ease of return if that is what people decide.

It is probably a good idea to limit this discussion to the wording of the paragraph that will be included in this article. As you can see from the discussions this has been a hot topic because it is difficult to keep a NPOV and many sources.

I am not at all opposed to fully lengthening this section, but that should be discussed before it is done since the entire purpose of the International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid article is to fully cover the international reactions.


Zuchinni one (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


BEGIN REMOVED CHUNK

The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency meeting at the request of Turkey, during which the Turkish foreign minister stated "Israel must be held accountable for its crimes" (prior to the meeting, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN called for an independent Security Council investigation). While the British ambassador said Israel should end the Gaza blockade and take steps for an investigation, the US deputy permanent representative supported the Israeli position that humanitarian aid should have gone by "accepted international mechanisms," and the Israeli deputy permanent representative said the flotilla was not humanitarian but had a mission of breaking the blockade.[5] Turkey, the Palestinians and Arab states called for condemnation "in the strongest terms" and an independent international inquiry.[6] 12 hours of negotiations were required to come up with a statement that suited all.[6]

The United Nations Security Council's issued statement, which requested an "impartial" investigation of the deaths and condemned those "acts" that led to it.[7]

As a result of the emergency meet that went into the early hours of the morning, the council agreed condemn the acts that resulted in the deaths and injuries aboard the Mavi Marmara. They also called for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards. This was different from what Turkey and the Arab states were demanded – an independent international investigation – leaving open the possibility of who would conduct the investigation.[8]

NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the organization joined calls for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation" into the raid.[9]

Israel rejected calls by the international community for an independent investigation into the raid.[10][11]

United states president wasn't quoted yrt directly. White House speaker summary is: "The president expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded". "The president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible"[12]

Nobel-winning Elders deplore Gaza flotilla attack and called for a “full investigation” of the incident and urged the UN Security Council “to debate the situation with a view to mandating action to end the closure of the Gaza Strip.” “This tragic incident should draw the world’s attention to the terrible suffering of Gaza’s 1.5 million people..."[13]

END REMOVED CHUNK

Zuchinni one (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging it into International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid, but it seems this has only been deleted. Has anyone checked if the deleted part contains anything useful for that article? — Sebastian 19:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At one point this information was in the other article. If it has been removed feel free to re-add. That's why I archived it here :) Zuchinni one (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian military expert

Can somebody please check this revert: [22] The expert is commenting on the photo, and on other photos, and the revert mischaracterizes the expert's opinion. The editor making the revert seems to suggest that we only should comment items shown in this particular photo, but we can't include all the photos in the article due to Non-free/Fair use and space concerns. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get a response yet, so I tried an alternative phrasing, hoping this is acceptalbe: [23] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same sentence reverted again, partially by the same editor [24] and partially by another [25] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the second editor [26] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the google translation[27], the reverts were proper, as " but that some of it was the types of weapons used in the Intifada" and " other types of knives and items appeared to be have been brought along for fighting with." seem to be adapted from the expert's comments on Israeli allegations, not what is in the photos.John Z (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The expert is commenting both on the photo shown on the right, and on the other photos. He is specifically saying that some of the knives in that photo don't belong on a ship and were brought for fighting, and that the clubs/handles also stand out. He is also commenting on the slingshots, which the Google translation mangles as "powerful pop-peas" and the gas masks, both of which are also shown in the video that he is commenting. He is not just commenting allegations. Here is the footage in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM it shows alleged gas masks at 0:50 and the slingshots the Norwegian is commenting on at 0:32. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to make it clear what he is commenting on. I added qualifications about the clubs/handles and knives to make it closer to his statements. He does not seem to me to say that some of the knives don't belong (I covered that in my last edit) and were brought for fighting anywhere. The brought for fighting seems to refer to his "When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful slingshots, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight." "Når det gjelder funn av gassmasker og kraftige spretterter, så kan det tyde på at i alle fall noen om bord var forberedt på å slåss."John Z (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit accurately describes what he says about that one image, but the article mentions more than one photo, and the expert says he has seen the videos from the IDF, and he's commenting on the gas masks and slingshots, and compares them to stuff used in the Intifada. Could we add on that "he said finds of slingshots and gas masks suggested that at least some on board were prepared to fight."--ReneJohnsen (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google translation is not RS. Info about broom sticks, screwdrivers, wrenches, and other kitchen/garage tools still available to (as kind weapons) Palestinian people fighting Israeli tanks is inrelevant to the article since Intifada wasn't naval battle. Hovever the lack of stones make big difference. If ,the point, is very important for balanced coverage of Israeli threat by this kind arms race please elaborate on the importance. Do the picture show the kind of arms the Israeli government constantly invoke talking about Hamas arm build (as the picture seem to suggest in released by IDF this garbage collection) up, the lethal danger for existence of the state? Ai 00 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am Norwegian and understand the article without Google translation. Intifada doesn't have to be mentioned, but we have to accurately report that the expert says they're not military weapons, but that some of the items indeed appear brought along for the purpose of being used as weapons. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Journalist

The previous sentence also needs some work: It is "One of the journalists from Czech Republic stated that no check of the baggage was done." Citing in Czech google translation. Relevant sentences are: Kontroloval někdo při vstupu na palubu, jestli u sebe máte zbraně? Ne, člověk si tam mohl pronést víceméně cokoli. Google trans: Someone checked when boarding, if you carry a gun? No, man is there to say anything more or less. So at most it may be saying that he, a journalist not on the Mavi Marmara, was not checked for a gun, but only questioned.John Z (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NONENG, English language sources are preferred, and a translation of the relevant part should be provided in cases like this. I have removed the sentence for the time being.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Bilgen

I don't really understand why the political ideology of İbrahim Bilgen (belonging to an Islamist party; a major feature of the Turkish political system: islamist vs. secular parties) is constantly removed, with hilarious comments (the last being a "grammar fix"). --Ecemaml (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new video shows prepartion of the terrorists arming themselves with weapons before the clash

I think the new video released from the ship's security camera changes the whole picture. It's not Israel's version. Videos show that no soldiers shot first. The idea implied in the article's pictures and captions that IDF may have doctored pictures or that it's not reliable, is pure antisemitic. Enough of that. If IDF "claims" then the antisemitic news agencies "claim" as well. 85.250.248.46 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link?Shrike (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU&feature=player_embedded#!Shrike (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These videos do give a degree of credence to Israel's account. Though a video can be cropped to tell a particular story. I'd say that the Israeli's account should be updated to make it clear which of their claims they have not backed up with video evidence. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could, you know, ignore those people who are obviously just here to push a POV. Also, "It's not Israel's version"? The user who posted that on youtube is idfnadesk. They describe themselves as "IDF Spokesperson's Unit". Here's their profile. Seriously, would all of the POV-pushers kindly GTFO? It's hard enough to make a neutral and fair article on a subject such as this without having to deal with your lies and misinformation. That goes equally for pro- and anti-israeli people. The Internet is a big place. Take your bickering elsewhere. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, I think you need to take a closer look at that video footage. First of all, surveillance camera footage is almost always in black and white. Secondly, The activists are show wearing life vests, however, in all other video shots of the incident, no life vests are worn, it is also highly unlikely that in the heat of the moment these activist preparing for battle remembered to dawn their life vests. Lastly and most importantly, The footage in this video shows no wobble or sway at all. If this was really filmed on a moving boat, in the middle of the Mediterranean, the footage would not be completely still, as it is in this shot. Also, the Israeli commandos entered from helicopter, they did not board the ship by rappelling up the sides. This is a crude attempt distort the facts of this story. This situation is confusing enough without people uploading fake videos to youtube. Sam H 00:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The video seems real. If it is real it shows some activists making preparations to defend against a raid. On the other hand, with Infrared thermal views, Israel army could easily spot those people before raiding. So they knew what they would get into. Commandos raided from both helicopters and from sea boats. The footage shows activists with wooden sticks, slingshots, a high pressure water hose with no blade, kind of weapons, and an organized attack/defense against the raiders.
On the other hand those weapons aren't comparable with automatic rifled/knifed commandos. There is only a number advantage. Also no shaking in the video is a bit suspicious as you say. The bigger the ship the more it shakes on sea. And of course it is a footage. It doesn't show how IDF commandos shoot people at all. If it would be unedited we would see how the kill activists. On high waters noone has any right to intertwine any ship. Kasaalan (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video appears to be corroborated by this video, which shows water being sprayed, stuff being thrown, and it shows a commando attempting to put up a grappling hook. As for Sam Hs comments: 1. "almost always in black and white" is meaningless. You even say so yourself. This is one example of color security tapes. 2. There are loads of videos with them wearing life vests. They were notified by radio that they would be boarded and had plenty of time to put them on after the warning or before. 3. There is no wobble or sway when something is bolted to the object that is moving. 4. The video I posted above appears to corroborate this video somewhat. Metallurgist (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law

IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/114/623.html?hp=1&cat=875 ShalomOlam (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza convoy raid may boost militancy

Gaza convoy raid may boost militancy http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6512VD20100602 --Nevit (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article contained speculation what could happen next. Didn't contain much concrete actions. --Kslotte (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Weapons Picture is not NPOV

If you look at the file talk then everyone is rightfully saying that they just look like "tools" and stuff you can find on any ship. I'm not sure if this source can be used, or if we should wait and see if the media will cover it (unlikely), but here, you can see pictures with slingshots with "Hizbollah" written on them, the saws they used to cut the metal poles from they ship that they used as weapons, and knives that were obviously not kitchen knives and one of which even looked like a punch dagger - demonstrating the obvious premeditated nature of the violence on the part of the "peace activists." TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video of them arming themselves, putting on gas masks, and throwing objects at the IDF before they boarded. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Video of them throwing objects at soldiers - including a stun grenade. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop advocating on behalf of the IDF spokesperson. It isn't allowed. If you have something to add to the article please find a secondary reliable source that describes it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we are going to also add pictures of victims or videos from funerals, then it might make sense to cool the rhetoric.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Showing video isn't advocating for any spokesman other than the truth. If you want a secondary source since eyes aren't good enough then here you go. They threw stun grenades and waved metal rods around before they were even boarded. Those are facts not "rhetoric." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what is wrong with Good's discussion. Seems appropriate. As to primary sources, that's an exaggeration of any concern about primarys -- we wouldn't for example want to censor the article by cutting out all quotes attributed to people on boats on both sides, pictures from both sides, videos from both sides, etc. Well, most of us wouldn't. There does seem to be a highly active contingent of editors with very few edits who would like to.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many images to include in the article is a perfectly reasonable discussion. I just don't understand the point of having what the Christian Science Monitor described as a video parsing contest to show the most bruises, kvives, shootings, funerals, etc.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Primary sources, I agree. If the IDF say "X" we can say that the IDF said "X". Likewise, if the flotilla organisers say "Y" we can say that the flotilla organisers said "Y". Both parties know best what their respective claims are. The issue, I believe, with WP:PRIMARY sources comes with the rest of the article, the part not relating to statements by the IDF or the flotilla organisers. What the article says happened - that we need to get from WP:SECONDARY sources. I don't trust the IDF or the flotilla organisers for, say, the number of casualties. I trust the BBC and CNN and Channel 10 and Al Jazeera to stake their reputations on accuracy, and I'm far happier citing them than either of directly involved parties. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epee, I do see what is wrong with this behavior. This kind of thing, 'Showing video isn't advocating for any spokesman other than the truth.', is why we have the discretionary sanctions. If that is how an editor approachs an article they need to walk away for a while and come back when they understand that this is just an encyclopedia not another battlefield in the Israel-Palestine conflict per the sanctions. All of these IDF videos and the associated MFA narratives will be covered in reliable secondary sources if they are worth our attention. It's not about censorship, it's about people fighting lame wars here when they are required to comply with policies and the discretionary sanctions. If they simply do that, comply with policy, stick to article content rather than 'the truth' I have no problem with it at all. There does indeed seem to be a highly active contingent of socky editors with very few edits and if you have an idea who they might be let me know and I will try to help prove it/file SPI reports. I don't care which side they're on. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to agree with this sentiment. I would just like for us to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't intended to be a collections of photographs or media files, that's what Wikimedia Commons is for and to keep in mind this isn't a video parsing contest.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I'd like to replace the current weapons photo with this one or this one. I'd prefer the first one since it is clearer, but alternatively, I could combine several photos into a collage and add that. Note: These are from the same source used for the photo that is currently in the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I just had a closer reading of WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Further, to be copyright compliant clear attribution would have to be given and the resolution may have to be lowered. --

Nosfartu (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct, that's why I didn't propose to include pictures showing where the metal rods and where they were sawed off from parts of the ship to use as weapons since that description would require a secondary source. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing dead people

At Gaza flotilla raid#Activists there is four people listed, but only one is notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Based on that I'm going to remove the three others. Please, comment if you are of different opinion of how the policy should be interpreted. --Kslotte (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think at the very least we need to list the names of the dead and their positions in society, whether they presently have a wikipedia article or not. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL, not apply here? --Kslotte (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been removed..


Israel has released the names of four of the dead:[14]

It doesn't look like a memorial to me, simply the cited names of some of the dead, one of them has his own article and the positions and nationalities of the dead is a part of the reporting. We should know what we can about the dead activists to reflect on what type of people the dead activists were. It;s imo important. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe, as a compromise, this could be added to List of participants of the Gaza flotilla? — Sebastian 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a compromise, rules apply to all Wikipedia articles. --Kslotte (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some digging about how to interpret the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL: if a reader is reading the sources that support the event, names of the victims should be included when it helps to allow the reader to clearly understand the sources and the progression of the event

--Kslotte (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case I see only İbrahim Bilgen being notable enough to have a row in the article. The İbrahim Bilgen article has its own more stronger rules for "notability". --Kslotte (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I see should be included is to what organizations the dead people belong, like "orgX 3, orgY 4, ...". --Kslotte (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happened... The three unnotables were mentioned in this article on Ynet specifically because of their stated desires for martyrdom prior to the incident. An editor bothered by that angle removed those details but left the names. I personally think the martyrdom angle is important here but can't find it sourced anywhere else.  &#151;Rafi  21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you can find it here [28] Eldudarino (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The martyrdom angle definitely violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Note also wikipedia is not a news site (WP:NOTNEWS), its an encyclopedia. --Kslotte (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that quotations such as "'I am going to be a shahid; I dreamt I will become a shahid – I saw in a dream that I will be killed,' Benginin told his family before leaving for the sail" are important for the context of the clash; those were aspiring martyrs wielding those metal bars.  &#151;Rafi  22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many more opinions were cited against legality than for legality of the action. For instance the opinion of Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz was not cited http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/ AFarber (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you may quote him like other sources. But also note that he is long-time advocate of Israel, and author of The Case for Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming confrotation with 2nd wave of ships

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/gaza.raid.activists/index.html

So we all know that more ships are on the way and it looks like there will be another confrontation.

Anyone feel like pre-empting how this should be covered in relation to the current article?

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think it may make sense - already now - to split this article into one about the whole flotilla and one about the raid. Currently, the list of ships fits only awkwardly into the article, since it contains ships that have nothing to do with the raid. — Sebastian 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel threatens to use more force. So it is not a matter of sticks. or If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you are attacking us and we are defending ourselves. It is a political decision by government of state. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177134 --Nevit (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First step is the add a new section for example "2nd wave of ships" last. But we need to start to think how to split up the article, it starts to get WP:TOOLONG. --Kslotte (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could at first be put in section "Aftermath". --Kslotte (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other five ships were raided also, but they put up little or no resistance. Metallurgist (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli reaction

I added. Do the Israeli reaction section has to be build only on israeli goverment PR. NPOV rather require balanced coverage. If there is Armada of Hate there the toronto Star sectrum was IMO good dePOV. What do you think? Hovever i prefer this outcome since there is way to find hate other than in ourselves soul reflection. So the if you do with love to other no hate will ever exist and if you cal somebody H word it is in you. Pace Ai 00 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking renaming "International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid" into "Political reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid". And then merge the "Israeli reactions" there, but leave a few sentences in the main article. What do other think? --Kslotte (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with your idea, Kslotte. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was named "Reactions to ..." only. Simpler is better. The section in the main article needs still updating to correspond as summary of the reaction article. --Kslotte (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six or seven ships involved in raid? MS Sofia?

All texts say six ships. But there is seven in the list: Challenger 1, Eleftheri Mesogeios, Sfendoni, MV Mavi Marmara, Gazze, Defne Y and MS Sofia. How is MS Sofia involved? If remember correct she wasn't in the list two days ago. --Kslotte (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. The two greek ships "Eleftheri Mesogeios and Sfendoni" could be split in two separate entries. --Kslotte (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal accounts

There is currently a difference of opinion whether personal accounts should be included, which leads to some looping between various versions with accounts from either side. See this diff for the maximum difference so far. Can we discuss this from a neutral point of view? — Sebastian 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report of American beaten and jailed by Israelis

[29][30][31]--149.166.34.100 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:REDFLAG should apply here. Also - in one of the links provided it is said: "The report could not be independently confirmed". ShalomOlam (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KTVU and SFGate are unreliable now? Was the one source saying it couldn't be confirmed because of Israeli military censors? If the IDF is a reliable source for reporting and can censor other coverage, how does that impact the story?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Chronicle is Northern California's largest newspaper, and one of the largest in the United States, serving primarily the San Francisco Bay Area. It has a circulation of 312,118 daily. The paper has received the Pulitzer Prize on a number of occasions.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SFGate did not say anyone was beatan. SFGate says that one person "suffered a scrape". ShalomOlam (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In his message, Paul Larudee said he was injured as he resisted arrest on the ship and that he was currently refusing to sign deportation papers in protest." Also, the first source is actually from some really small Berkley newspaper and was simply reprinted by the San Jose Mercury News. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting an Israeli representative. The San Jose Mercury News is the major daily newspaper in San Jose, California and Silicon Valley. It has a circulation of 230,870 daily. It reported he "was badly beaten". KTVU reported his wife "learned via the U.S. consulate that her husband was jailed and beaten in the aftermath of Monday's controversial Israeli raid on the flotilla" and that he reported "blackened eye and bruises all over his body". Why is there such an effort to paint his injuries as minimal (when he can't be shown in public), and why such an attempt to call these sources unreliable?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the fact that one of the sources wrote "report could not be independently confirmed" - speaks for itself. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Israeli government won't speak on his condition or release him speaks for itself. The IDF doesn't have any pictures of him?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that speaks to is that he refused to sign the deportation papers - as stated in the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with them beating him and holding him in a windowless cell? They can't even show him in public?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said they wouldn't release him - but didn't mention that was only because he wouldn't sign his deportation papers. Rather dishonest eh? As for having a "windowless cell" (assuming you actually got this "fact" right) do you think cells usually have windows? Do you think Israel has the resources to organize "visiting hours" for the hundreds of "activists" they've had to deal with? Good grief dude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have resources to record a military raid but they don't have resources to announce his status to the press? How much does it cost to NOT put a wall up in a cell?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they "announce his status" over the hundreds of other people? I guess that must be the entitlement/activist mentality at work. And I don't think you understand what a "cell" is - they need walls in them and like airplanes not everyone gets a window seat. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Request to add information in reliable sources about beaten American to article.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "reliable" sources say the "The report could not be independently confirmed". That does not sound reliable to me... ShalomOlam (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Israeli government not discussing his status have to do with it? There is plenty of coverage..--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source said the 64-year old man was tasered. He said he was defending another passenger.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "another" source. There is only one source in all of these reports, and that's Betty Larudee, who most likely gave an interview to one just reporter. There are no other sources, beside Betty Larudee, and she is not reliable. WP:REDFLAG apply here. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you can justify the beating and tasering of a 64 year old man trying to deliver humanitarian aid by armed soldiers from an organized military, and further call mainstream newspapers unreliable. I give up.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he is old enough to resist arrest then he is old enough to get tasered bro. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two more "red flags". The Associated Press is reporting that "Akiva Tor, the Israeli consul general in San Francisco" has at a minimum confirmed "Larudee was taken to a prison, bruised and cut."[32]--149.166.34.100 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess he has belonged to what Israel calls a terrorist group for awhile now.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring topics

yellow

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

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

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

There was a recent change here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365708414
Perhaps the wording should be discussed again.

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

Maybe you might want to move that section down here? — Sebastian 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, I don't know exactly what the standards are for reformatting the Talk page and I don't want to confuse people by accidentally handling it wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activists or passengers?

See also /Archive_2#Activists or passengers? - decision was to keep "passengers" for now. — Sebastian 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC), edited 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should use activists. Passenger is a term for leisure activities or travel. Kasaalan (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should use "people", since there is no confimation that all dead were in fact activists. This is not a fact, but and assumption. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've directed several people to the other section. I will add a new link there to this Sticky part. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "people" seems to be the best choice for now. Any objections? — Sebastian 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People is fine. Prodego talk 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in agreement with a neutral word like 'people'. 'Passengers' would be fine with me as well. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: there seems to currently be an edit war on this subject. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Israeli youths release balloons during a rally in support of the Israeli army.... http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-202_162-10003632.html --Nevit (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop posting irrelevant links you find interesting, particularly without any commentry on how they belong in this article? This is not your personal blog. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture show how irresponsibly the Israeli youth are celebrating the attack without any sign of regret for those who lost their lives in attack. how do you find this irrelevant? I did not post a comment since the picture speaks for itself. It is as self speaking as Barack Obama's suggestion that Israel can investigate the incident in which she is primary suspect. But not included in article.

I believe there are several Hasbara and NPOV issues in this wikipedia article. I suggest a NPOV tag added. I guess the pro-Israeli's would also support the suggestion, since many have ironically commented that article is not neutral enough for them.

  • Smearing/defaming critics of Israel. Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol...

There are terms like pro-Palestinian (attributing activits to support a race), Islamist (attributing activists supporting a religion), in this article and related articles as prefix to names of people and organizations. Trying to discredit them and their actions. There is even a section claiming that the organizers had ties not only to Hamas, but also to global Jihad, and al Qaida etc. etc.

  • Selective discussion of issues

Events leading up to the raid section has completely omitted the "Israeli politicians account" to attack the ships. Selective overuse of pictures supplied by released by Israel military. Distributing the article into several ones so that it becomes hard to follow. Selecting irrelevant issues as "they had sticks" as major issues. Omitting major issues as political backing of Barack Obama for Israel

--Nevit (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a blog or a forum. What you think the picture shows is irrelevant. Please stop spamming this talk page with irrelevant information. Where's Sean.hoyland when you need him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack me personally. The news source is a major news paper. It is relevant to article. Perhaps it disturbs you for some other reason. --Nevit (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking you personally. Your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine. The picture is in a major newspaper, but the interpretation is yours. See WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Balloons are common in Israel to show support for the release of Ron Arad and Gilad Shalit. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another document showing Isreeli's celebrating the killings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMzc1N1Cx3s --Nevit (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the talk page in a forumy and soapboxy manner. You have been asked to more than once now. There of course will be some personal opinions expressed and that shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. There of course should be some leeway. However, you should know by now that youtube is not RS. I can understand why people think you are using this page incorrectly looking at some of the other sections. How about you keep it to RSs? Nothing wrong with pointing out that there are celebrations or that Israel killed people but spamming the page with sources we cannot use is not helping and has gotten to the point where it is frustrating other editors.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can an admin shoot him the ArbCom message: {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nevit just posting links showing how <insert random adjective e.g. evil> <insert random thing to be portrayed that way e.g. the IDF, kitchen utensils, thick gloves, people called Kevin etc> isn't helpful at all. If you have something you want added to the article you need to make specific content proposals based on RS. If you think something is relevant you need to say how, why and which bit of the article should be changed/updated or go ahead and update it yourself per WP:BRD if it is policy compliant. People just posting links because they like them is the wiki I-P conflict article equivalent of Hamas firing a rocket out of the Gaza Strip or the IDF crossing the border into Gaza to carry out a targeted killing. It doesn't exactly encourage collaboration. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IHH

AP INTERVIEW: Turkish aid group had terror ties
Does this go in the article? Background section perhaps? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll add it soon if it isn't in there already. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. This article is already busy enough. Information about IHH belongs into the article about IHH. — Sebastian 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this, I corrected a spelling error in the section I saw, moved it to the appropriate spot, and added relevant info on the topic about their history of weapon smuggling which the blockade was implemented to prevent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you remove that? Wtf dude? The IFF smuggled weapons for terrorists and are trying to break a blockade that prevents the same thing. That is relevant and shouldn't be relegated to some crappy article that nobody will read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion superseded by User_talk:SebastianHelm#Regarding_IFF_weapon_smuggling_as_background_for_Gaza_Flotilla_incident. — Sebastian 00:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this edit belong in International Reactions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365710671&oldid=365710638

USA Today criticized the Israelis for lack of prescience for its surprise of enmity extended to the Palstenians by saying "no event was more important in the formation of Israel than the confrontation 63 years ago between the ship Exodus filled with 4500 Holocaust survivors trying to get into the Holy City, and the British Navy trying to keep them out." Three Jews were killed in the 1947 incident and the remaining were deported in to camps in Germany. The British faced recriminations from Europe and the United States, and international sentiment shifted to the Jewish settlers.[15]

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is not a condemnation or praise for either group, but rather an opinion at the lack of forsight by Israel into the varied (mostly condemnation) that are expressed in the main article regarding reactions. Plus, the 1947 parallels almost identically to the 2010 event, so some mention of the 1947 event should be in the main article. If you want to move this to another sections or create a new section that's fine with me.Ccson (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. International reaction should be a comment or action by a country or an organization or group of people or some official (like a PM), not an editorial of a newspaper. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont' care where its place, but it should be in this article. what section should we place it?Ccson (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None. USA Today's editors' personal opinion is not relevant in an encyclopedia. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget their opinion. The facts of the comparison speak for themselves and document at SS Exodus. What section? I'll remove the opinion just point out the obvious comparison.72.151.116.252 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WIKI is an encyclopedia. Meaning: not the plcae for comparisons such as this. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. I'll find an appropriate place.72.151.116.252 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you must. It will be removed. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, one of the strenghts of Wikipedia is that links are easy. In other articles, we often have statements like "The subject of this article has been compared with [[Y]]". However, since (a) this event is currently in all papers, (b) there are hundreds of opinion pieces, (c) this article is already so busily edited that it has become tedious to edit, and (d) we don't even include the statements of whole nations here, I would rather we didn't add it; at least not until this has cooled off. — Sebastian 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a see also section at the bottom of article until this can be incorporated into the main body.Ccson (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Gaza Movement: trained in non-violent resistance

Resolved

Artical says: "Several of the passengers were peace activists, trained in non-violent resistance and confrontation methods". But no RS to back this up. Should be removed. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This didn't exactly fit under the headline, anyway. — Sebastian 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Activists" sung Muslim songs glorifying the slaughter of Jews

Another source from the religion of peace. Should this go in the background section as well? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it confirmed by multiple RS ? or is it just another youtube video ? --yousaf465' 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The video was initially posted by Al Jazeera and Real Clear Politics is the source that I used since they explain a bit about the slaughter that is being sung about. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source is pro-Israel Palestine Media Watch. So the footage is not a reliable 3rd party. I don't know arabic and couldn't hear any Battle of Khaybar chant. However if it is true we may include it in 1 line. Kasaalan (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the original source is Al Jazeera. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Arabic, and Palestine Media Watch isn't reliable. Al Jazeera has an English section, if you can find video/text there provide the link. Kasaalan (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know enough Arabic to know that they are indeed singing about Jews. But other than that I can't tell you what's being said. And Kasaalan is right that Palestine Media Watch isn't NPOV at all. We need to find another reference. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is VERY clear and indisputable that they chant "Khyber! Khyber" ya Yahud!" which is a well-known "death to Jews" chant. Also, I dont know of anyone disputing PMWs translations. Our article says nothing about disputes. Even for MEMRI, they dispute the examples it selects, not their translations. Its really hard to get away with fake translations. And all of this is moot as my first sentence explains. Metallurgist (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean death to Jews. Ya Yahud means O jew just as Ya Allah. Khyber is with refrence to Battle of Khaybar. Urdu had it's origin in Arabic too.--yousaf465' 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Gitmicem, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

About the sentence that states "The Mavi Marmara, as opposed to the other ships in the flotilla, was manned by members of the Turkish Islamic group IHH, which had longstanding ties to terrorism and Jihad, according to European Union and Israeli officials.": In the sources that has been linked after sentence shows that the assuming tie between terrorism-Jihad and IHH has been denied by the foundation's officals and there is not a clear evidence of such an accuse. Besides, IHH is not a Turkish Islamic Group, it is a international charity established by Turkish people. The expansion of IHH is "International Humanitarian Help", the name of the foundation in Turkish is: İnsani Yardım Vakfı.

Gitmicem (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Prodego talk 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation has Islamic roots. Anyone claims otherwise is certainly wrong. On the other hand I do not know any direct relation between Islamic Jihad etc. We cannot keep speculation. Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Islam is a religion. You may not accept it. Neither me believe. But accusing someone or some organization by its religion or race is not true. It is propaganda. It is just as ridicule as accusing the flotilla attack as an act of Jews. I can not accept your views. --Nevit (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is no accusation. Being Islamic or Evangelist etc. is a matter of political/religious choice. And IHH is an Internationally operating Islamic Charity. Also as I say, the Israel government is also right wing and religiously fundamentalist, it is a fact. Kasaalan (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have no official religious position. The flotilla itself contained people of several religions including those who do not believe in religion or deities. Their main position is confronting Israel by putting it in difficult position by disobedience to end the largest concentration camp on earth. The second statement is my guess. --Nevit (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know flotilla was carrying many international activists who are not IHH members. However the organization, founders and members support Islamic views by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inside NATO HQ's

Inside NATO HQ's about the Gaza flotilla raid http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/israeli_murders.html

--Nevit (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor problem

After the following statement in the article; "A senior Norwegian officer stated after watching the released pictures that "This is not military equipment", while the tools and kitchen knives would normally belong on a ship" There is a dubious tag. This is accompanied by a photo of kitchen knives and tools provided by the Israeli's as evidence of weapons on board. What is dubious about this?--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Id rather include a picture containing the gas masks, bulletproof vests and most nasty looking weapons like punch daggers then there would be less confusion on the subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A claim not in source

I am removing the following...

Prior to the boarding, activists aboard the ships repeatedly stated they would not respond with violence to the navy's interception of their flotilla.[16]

...which is not supported by its citation. This sentence has been here a long time and it since become clear that some of the activists were bent on violence. If someone has a better source for the sentence please contribute.  &#151;Rafi  23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in a new section below.  &#151;Rafi  23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several sections are removed here: [33]. These are all notable expert comments and they should be re added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Un sourced and off topic on Hamas

This about Hamas is un sourced and off topic: [34] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intentions of activists

Note: I've removed some comments on both sides from the discussion below under WP:NOTAFORUM. 187.143.10.134 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the activists clearly planned for violence, as documented in these RS's:

3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom' — Ynet
Gaza flotilla attack: Turkish activists killed in raid 'wanted to be martyrs' — Telegraph
"[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" — Aljazeera (through PMW)

It may have been only a dozen or so out of 700 activists, and perhaps many more, but it only takes a few aspiring martyrs to bring a confrontation to violence.

This context is absolutely relevant.  &#151;Rafi  23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At best those articles are flimsy attempts at justifying the use of disproportionate force by Israeli commandos. "They wanted to be as martyrs anyway." It is just as likely that those involved in violent scuffles with commandos were acting out of panic, or out of protective instinct (women and children were aboard). Too subjective to be useful in my opinion. Mshahidil (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed: whose fault Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed: assertion of motive TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed: whose fault Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed: hypothetical TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that is a reason not to include that reliable sources say they wanted to be martyrs, or are you just making conversation?
Does the IDF has any video of who shot the guns at the passengers?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed: who started it The fact that some activists intended to become martyrs is certainly relevant to this dispute.  &#151;Rafi  00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question of "who started it" is certainly disputed, but is the question of "who ended it"?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
removed: pointing out existing dispute over points removed above Mshahidil (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If enough RS can verify this then perhaps it should be included somewhere. But remember that even if a few people were looking for trouble that doesn't mean that everyone was. Also it may be difficult to say whether or not the actual trouble started as a result of the actions of these passengers, or the actions of the IDF. Just because you state you were planning to do something doesn't mean that's actually what happened. So if this is included be very careful to stay NPOV and not go beyond the verifiable facts. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also linked a video above showing dozens of them singing about some battle where Mohamed slaughtered a village of Jews and how "Mohamed's army was coming back." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, the dreams of 3/663 activists (.45%) is by no means notable enough to include in the article. And it would of course be incorrect to judge the actions of the 663 based on the dreams of the 3. Prodego talk 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 3/663, it's three out of the dozen or so who swarmed the commandos. It definitely warrants inclusion, in a way that sticks to the bare facts as per Zuchinni one above.  &#151;Rafi  00:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens != 3. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your source says 3. Prodego talk 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, let me try that again. If there are at least three on board who aspire for martyrdom, and a dozen or so activists swarm the commandos who drop down, that is a much higher percentage than .45% and is notable.  &#151;Rafi  00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My source clearly shows over a dozen chanting about Muhamed's great slaughter of the Jews at Khaibar and calling themselves "Mohamed's army." Additionally, the video of the incident shows at least a dozen, on the top deck alone, swarming the IDF with weapons in hand. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the activists are clearly Islamic fundamentalists or supporters. On the other hand Israel government is also ruled by Jewish fundementalists. So at best scenario it is a clash between opposing fundementalists. removed: discussion of incident Kasaalan (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed: discussion of incident TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM - keep your comments to if this should be included or not. Prodego talk 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS #2 (The Telegraph article) contextualizes the quotes this way: "Such descriptions would be regarded by many Muslims as evidence that they put religious duty before their lives, rather than an admission that they were heading to battle." It would seem that a wide variety of intentions are covered by that. The "martyr" quotes thus don't clarify intention and don't belong in a description of the much larger flotilla's intentions.--Carwil (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Khaybar" chant certainly invokes battle. Again, this doesn't need to reflect the whole flotilla; it is relevant even if only a few activists wanted violence, because that was the outcome. We could write a new paragraph to make this distinction clear, again presenting only the verifiable facts.  &#151;Rafi  00:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this being included. Just be sure to note how many of the actual activists could be noted as having the intentions (i.e.) "At least three of the activists mentioned dreams about becoming martyrs in resistance" etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.43.125 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "armada of hate" be included

After the boarding took place, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that the flotilla of ships "was an armada of hate and violence." He added that the flotilla attempt to reach Gaza was "a premeditated and outrageous provocation" and claimed that its organizers had ties not only to Hamas, but also to global Jihad, and al Qaida.[17]

The above is currently in the "Israeli reactions" section, but I don't know if it should be there.

  1. The article quotes a more minor member of the government
  2. He belongs to a very right-wing party and has previously made statements that are not the official line of the Israeli government and which have gotten him into major trouble Danny Ayalon
  3. Even if a few people are using this term it does not mean that it is a Common_names even in the Israeli media
  4. There are very vitriolic statements on both sides. And name calling doesn't add anything to the article.
  5. Should we regularly quote from biased sources when describing people or groups? i.e.: "African Americans, or Niggers as they are called by the Ku Klux Klan"?
  6. Should the Israeli reactions section focus on inclusion of the overall reaction in the country, as per mainstream RS and the official response? Or do we want lots of random quotes as well?

I am not going to remove this quote, but perhaps there should be a discussion on its inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should include it as: Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon of a very right-wing party argued that the flotilla of ships "was an armada of hate and violence." That is NPOV. We report what both parties say and does. Kasaalan (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister for Zionist-right wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, argued that the flotilla of ships "was an armada of hate and violence." Detailed and reflects Ayalon's opinion as it is. Kasaalan (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If quotes are included should they appear below the overall reaction in the country and official response. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is Israel’s Blockade of Gaza Legal?

Unsure if this pertains to the raid, but as it is the reason behind sending humanitarian aid, and as such resulted in the IDF intervention this legal analysis of the Gaza blockade may interest editors here.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We may use a see also section with relevant links. Kasaalan (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, and unclear if the previous comment belongs in this section) I'm not sure if it's a credible source, or if it pertains to the raid, either, but the analysis is absurd in dealing with the American Civil War.. I have studied that from an international law standpoint, and that analysis was not accurate at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume non-RS in areas you don't have expertise/research. Useful article for San Remo Manual. RS article by Prof. Kevin Jon Heller who is currently "a Senior Lecturer at Melbourne Law School where he teaches criminal law, comparative criminal law, and international criminal law. His work has appeared in, among others, the European Journal of International Law, the American Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Criminal Justice, the Michigan Law Review and the Leiden Journal of International Law. He is currently writing a book entitled The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law, which will be published by Oxford University Press in 2010. Prof. Heller has also been involved in the International Criminal Court's negotiations over the crime of aggression, served as Human Rights Watch's external legal advisor on the trial of Saddam Hussein, and consulted with the defense in a number of cases at the ICTY and ICTR. He is currently serving as one of Radovan Karadzic's Registry-appointed legal associates." [35] Publisher Opinio Juris "is a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations. It was founded by Chris Borgen, a law professor at St. John’s University Law School, who started the site with Peggy McGuinness of the University of Missouri Law School and Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School. Since then, the Opinio Juris team has expanded to include Roger Alford of Pepperdine University Law School; Kevin Jon Heller from Melbourne Law School in Australia; Duncan Hollis and Peter Spiro, both of Temple University Law School; Ken Anderson of American University Washington College of Law; and most recently Deborah Pearlstein, currently a visiting scholar at Princeton." [36] Kasaalan (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if everything you wrote is correct, it's not a reliable source, although it might be a credible basis for speculation. It's still questionable in regard the American Civil War. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is RS by every wiki/academic standard. Criminal Law Professor, whose papers published in various international academic journals and book published by Oxford University Press, who served as "Human Rights Watch's external legal advisor on the trial of Saddam Hussein" and involved in the International Criminal Court's negotiations over the crime of aggression. So he is international academic expert on the international criminal law field. Publishing party is also an academic online site. Kasaalan (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this is not an RS; Opinion Juris is probably the leading IL blog. It and the comments seem to give the standard textbook analysis with respect to the American Civil War - that the USA (along with other powers) recognized the CSA as a belligerent, and therefore the laws of war at the time applied. The application to Israel vs. Hamas is common - the blockade could only be arguably legal if it recognizes Hamas as a belligerent,so it has to treat Hamas fighters as POWs etc, which it doesn't - Israel's positions are inconsistent.John Z (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Events leading up to the raid section

I moved part of the "Background" section to the "Events leading up to the raid" section, and I had planned to merge the two and put them in chronological sequence. Unfortunately, I was distracted, and have to leave now. I apologize for leaving this section in a state that leaves much to desire. — Sebastian 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knesset member on board Hanin Zoabi denied IDF story

"Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation," she told the Knesset. Hanin Zoabi has emerged as a leading domestic critic of her government, calling their military operation "criminal."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0602/Gaza-flotilla-raid-pushes-unknown-Knesset-member-into-spotlight

--Nevit (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of a member of the radical Balad who personally thinks that Iran should have nukes is not terribly surprising. I'm assuming she got into office because they are running on a parliamentary system of some sort just like we'd have sitting members of the KKK party if we had such a system - both of who'd have similar opinions on a variety of topics summed up as, "It was the Jews!." TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It was clear from the size of the force that boarded the ship that the purpose was not only to stop this sail, but to cause the largest possible number of fatalities in order to stop such initiatives in the future."

Don't know the party, According to Balad (political party) it is an Arab nationalist party "whose stated purpose is the 'struggle to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens, irrespective of national or ethnic identity.'" Zoabi commented "she was not worried about the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead she suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran would act as a counter-power to Israel." No country should have nukes. But USSR counter balanced USA. Pakistan counter balanced India. Iran may counter balance Israel. Israel has around 75-400 nuke warheads, So arguing that view is not equal to KKK. Read Mordechai Vanunu, Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iran's stated goal is the destruction of Israel - there is no "balance" when dealing with radicals. The plain fact of the matter is that they want to import as many Muslims as possible and then vote themselves a nice little Nazi Germany 2.0 - they call that tyranny of the masses "democracy regardless of national identity." TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So doesn't Israel's stated goal is to destroy Iran. Israel and Iran is very similar on threatening each other. Kasaalan (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's goal is not to destroy Iran but to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. I suggest you look up some video of what they teach their children in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia (hint: It rhymes with pesticide). TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is irrelevent here. We have an elected eyewitness here from ship. Do not try to discredit her from by bullying her with her political views. Being an Arab or being a Nationalist is not a crime. They have the right to defend their race when it is in danger. --Nevit (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

As far as I can tell, the move discussion was open for less than 24 hours. I see a consensus, but it can't be clear over that short a time. As a procedural matter, I ask that a clearly posted move request be placed, and kept open for at least a week, although I have no objections to moves being made in the interim if a temporary clear consensus for another name is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name can be changed when enough opinions had been heard and consensus reached. It can take on hour or several months depending on article. --Kslotte (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a firm consensus was reached. And with the auto-archiving here, the pointers may have been archived before the subpage was closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't follow the situation, but I assume a consensus was reached. If it wasn't feel free to open the case again. --Kslotte (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate wording in the lead

There are two very similar parts of the lead appearing in separate paragraphs.

Perhaps the 2nd one should be removed.

  1. The United Nations Security Council condemned "those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded", and calling for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards".[14] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed regret for the loss of life, and said that the event represents a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[15][16]
  2. The UN Human Rights Council has demanded a raid investigation,[19] while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "Israel is the victim of an international hypocrisy attack."[20]

I'm trying to limit my edits to very minor wording changes that improve clarity, so I am not going to remove #2. If someone else agrees with me could you please take care of it :) Zuchinni one (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases merged. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SS Exodus in See Also section

Not sure how this is relevant.

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That ship was also seized. It's one of the most similar incidents compared to the Gaza flotilla raid. --Kslotte (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A broad see also section would be helpful if we may categorize links accordingly. Kasaalan (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was earlier a second see also link (see earlier discussion here). But someone removed it. Issue here is this Gaza flotilla raid is quite unique in history (Wikipedia). So, we won't find articles that has all the same elements as in this raid. If we find a few similarities it is enough. I think three entries would be fine, if we are able to find that many. --Kslotte (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can get a better comparison between the SS Exodus raid in 1947 and the Gaza flotilla raid in 2010. 1) both ships were traveling to Palestine, 2) both were raided by a navy, 3 both had deaths, 4) the living were immediately deported from Palestine, 5)both received outrage from the international community, 5) the future residents of Israe were on the 1947 boat and the same people who raided the 2010 boat. It's obvious to me, however; the SS Exodus has "see also" section that might have some more comparisons if you want at least 3.Ccson (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also links doesn't have to indicate anything. They are for comparison or further info. See also sections are useful for readers. Kasaalan (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article from the BBC which states and therefore still baffles me why it shouldn't be directly in the article

It is also clear that the Israelis had little intelligence about what was being prepared on the ship.

It is reminiscent of the British assault in 1947 on the Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish refugees hoping to break the then British naval blockade on Palestine.

In that incident, too, the assault force underestimated the opposition, resorted to force, and three of the passengers died.

That event did much to undermine British rule in Palestine and to increase support for a Jewish state.

Ccson (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flotilla "activists" told to write their wills before coming

Here and here, along with the past weapon smuggling of the organization and ties to terrorists I think these would fit in well in a section about their motivations/background. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone determine if these are Reliable Sources? They appeared to be circular references and I couldn't find the original articles. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheGoodLocust, please review your framing of proposals. Your previous contributions to this discussion as well as the obvious bias in the framing of this particular contribution (as well as the quotes around "activists") makes it clear that you are pushing a biased POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to edit with malicious bias, as you have in the past with pages on climate change and Barack Obama, to name two examples. 64.213.99.82 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MEMRI is a pro-Israel media watchdog, which co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, and another Israeli Meyrav Wurmser. Even its translations are controversial. MEMRI#Controversy Al-Aqsa TV is Hamas run TV channel. Another side of the conflict. Both sides are unreliable. However the story might be true. Kasaalan (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that the story may not have some truth. If it is true and the sources can be resolved and be found reliable, it would be important to include such information in the article. I am simply pointing out the biased nature of the proposal itself (notice the wording and the user's previous discussions) and the obvious POV that TheGoodLocust is pushing. 64.213.99.82 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that you dislike a certain user's POV, then I will propose his idea myself ;). Can't see the harm in discovering if the story is true or not, and it is certainly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.43.125 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UN Security Council

Throughout the article (including the intro and the Reaction section), it is not mentioned that the UN Security Council - in its recent statement - asked Israel to lift the blockade. I have seen this somewhere but don't remember where. Please add this detail if you have the source. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas in Background

The background section opens with: "Hamas is an Iranian-backed Islamist militant group that is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union, the United States, Israel and other countries." This seems more background on the Gazan government than background on the event itself. In any case, believe this info should not be first content after the article's lead. RomaC (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about Hamas is kind of wordy. But the flow of the article might be OK. Perhaps though, the first paragraph of the Background section should focus on the Blockade and not Hamas, since the entire incident was a result of trying to break through the blockade, and the blockade was not set up ONLY because Hamas took control of Gaza, but also because of attacks from Gaza into Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, standard coatracking but they left out the commited to the destruction of Israel bit. It should just say Hamas with a link. People can figure out what they are, evil terrorist anti-semites vs happy social engineers/the resistance, themselves from their article (which is a huge mess). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Sean here. A link seems to be the best way to keep this NPOV. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602 Faaaaaaamn (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the weight given in this article to legal opinions with the weight given to the reactions to the raid internationally and within Israel. It's becoming silly as usual. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is because we moved the reactions to a separate sub article. Marokwitz (talk)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Undue weight ==

Some editors are either removing material or tagging the Legal opinions opposing the action on pretext of undue weight, as far as I remember every source possible was used in Legal opinions supporting the action, ranging from little known lawyers to international experts. The problem is Legal opinions supporting the action is now either coming from the one of the belligerent party's sources or from USA a staunch ally. So we can't say that it has been intentionally unbalanced. It is just that way. Otherwise some editors are even being targeted as listed here List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors .--yousaf465' 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being targeted by the JIDF is something to be proud of. If someone is editing in a way that annoys them it usually means that the editor is complying with wiki policies and representing what the reliable sources say with due weight (which are of course all outrageously biased against Israel etc..yawn). The entire legal section, pro+con is getting out of control though. It's swamping the article. It needs to be cut back or split off. It's not in proportion to the weight given to this issue by the spectrum of RS that discuss the raid. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sean on both counts. I was very surprised to see some of the people who were listed as biased by the JIDF since they seemed to be so good at keeping a NPOV. In any case I think that a separate article for legality would be appropriate. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC
Agree with the convenience of a separate article on the legality of the action. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add my vote for a separate article too. Doesn't this act of that blog/site will compromise the safety of these editors ? --yousaf465' 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separating 'Legal' section

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

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

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

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

  • support - but people need to be aware of WP:GEVAL when it comes to anything including legal opinions and abide by it. It's a mandatory part of NPOV compliance that seems to get forgotten about in I-P conflict related articles. We don't give equal validity to minority and majority views i.e. editors shouldn't create a false balance of opinions. The relative weight should reflect the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Although references should reflect sources, I believe the future article (if it is made) would be better off by breaking down the main arguments (since there are many views) and then citing sources who support it.
  • Oppose I think it requires more than a single paragraph on the main page. There have been a few good articles recently on the legal issues in WP:RS, including the Christian Science Monitor and Slate. They identify the 2 critical issues as (1) Was the Gaza embargo legal in the first place and (2) Was it legal to stop the ships. We would be better off to summarize those articles, in a few paragraphs. The current section in "Legal opinions opposing the action" lists a long miscellany of names of scholars who are opposed without explaining why they're opposed. Many of the citations aren't in English, so most of us can't verify them. Moving that whole confused "Legal observations and opinions" to a separate article will just result in a confused article. --Nbauman (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Nbauman. Furthermore I think there is no need to mention legal "opinions" as "Professor A thinks it was legal, Professor B thinks it was illegal", since that is of no encyclopedic interest, rather focus on well argumented pro- and con- legal arguments based on specific treaties and international laws. Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map, take 2

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

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


  States that have protested or condemned Israeli actions.
  States that only expressed regrets over the loss of life during the incident.

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

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

It is not clear to me that a consensus on this map has been reached in the main reactions discussion page on it, although I see it was added again. Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Map
There has been strong opposition to this map and while it is good to see that Bless Sins is acting in good faith to improve it, there seem to be some fundamental flaws in including any kind of map like this, as can be seen if you look at the other discussion and the links in that discussion to a second controversial map here Talk:Gaza_War#The_Reactions_Map.
Even though the intentions are good I feel that this map constitutes OR and thus should not be included.
Zuchinni one (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will, once again, ask you: why does this map constitute OR? Every single country shaded has a reliable source backing its position.
Also, with all due respect Zuchinni one, you have only opposed the map. How about being constructive and working actively to fix any problem that you see with it.Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have detailed my thoughts as to why this seems to be OR in the other talk section which I linked to above. Would you like me to repeat that information here or shall I leave it in the other section? Zuchinni one (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this map would be better inserted here? Anti-Semitism is certainly not new and incidents like this are designed to fuel such sentiments. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the map, I don't think this is OR, most maps like this around WP are made from RS... by users. As far as I can see, you are missing Cuba on the map, however. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment by User:Thegoodlocust, I don't see any connection with antisemitism, unless you consider the State of Israel not a regular State whatsoever. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding antisemitism is irrelevant to this topic.Bless sins (talk) 3:04 am, Today (UTC−3)
Yes, Thegoodlocust, all those countries have complained about the actions of the IDF because they hate the Jewish people and it's all part of a design to fuel antisemitism...? Seriously, please keep your world views off the talk page, it's not funny anymore. Can you read the discretionary sanctions linked at the top of the talk page,...seriously, you need to read them. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba has been added. Also, please note anyone is free to edit the map and make changes and update it. I have released all rights on it, and you can modify it as you please within wiki rules (and common sense).Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as original synthesis. The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Synthesis. Just "States that condemned/protested the action, one way or another" vs. "States that didn't". No mistake. Salut,--IANVS (talk | cont) 06:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marokqitz, can you explain yourself please? In particular, can you draw out statements from WP:SYNTH that would suggest this map is in violation of the policy? Can you give precise examples, with respect to certain countries? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that none of the reliable sources includes a map similar to this, and no source divided the countries response in such a "black and white" way. You have synthesized many reliable sources and while doing so, categorized each to "black" or "white". The latter part is original research. In many cases this is a misrepresentation of what they actually say, which is more complex than simply "condemn" or "regret". Hope I'm clear now. 07:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the map should be added, as it offers some useful info at a glance. What is the relation between this and anti-semitism? I do not understand how anti-semitism is related to a map of condemning Israeli action at flotilla. Can someone elaborate please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.84.138 (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please, no one elaborate here. Elaborate on 203.112.84.138's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sins, you are also missing Peru condemnation. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • England is colored red
  • In the International reactions article it currently says "Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned the Israeli attack".
  • So that seems like a pretty clear cut case for England specifically condemning Israel.
  • However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)
  • So at some point we went from a fairly neutral 'condemned it', to 'condemned the Israeli attack'.
  • So what color should England be?
  • People with the best of intentions can easily make mistakes here
  • There is often some kind of judgment made about whether the 'condemnation' was specific or general WP:OR
  • And when pulling quotes from multiple RS there can accidentally be synthesis WP:SYNTH

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

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

Would anyone else support asking for WP:Third_opinion?

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

Request for comment might be better than third opinion for this. I personally think the map should also be removed due to the worries of taking one leader's position as being the state position. The map needs work and some double checking so should sit in a subsection here while people work it out. Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the event: "Gaza flotilla raid". The map contributes no information about this event. Vikipedy (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • First a wiki editor creates sets, 'states that X', 'states that not X'.
  • They then have to create set inclusion decision procedures to identify whether a state belongs in the X or not X set. These first 2 steps are already highly problematic because it's an information classification system that doesn't come from a reliable source, it's opaque, non-deterministic and non-repeatable.
  • Once they have their opaque and personal decision procedures to decide whether something is in the X or not X set they have to find the input to that decision procedure, the RS. But which RS do you pick ? There will be many sources that make statements about what a country said about it. And which statement do you pick ? How do you know you haven't missed something ? How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements in a natural language into 'states that X' and 'states that not X' set memberships in a policy compliant way avoiding original research and synthesis ? It isn't possible. We're treating it like it's as easy as classifying integers into sets of odds and evens. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that this map also be temporarily removed from the Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid page until a consensus is reached either via the talk pages, RFC, or Third Opinion. That suggestion can be found here in the talk page for the Reactions article. --- Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Zuchini, I should have given you a heads up on the RfC process. Looks like this has the potential to bog down with so many involved editors chiming in. Just to do it myself, I would like to second "The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified." and the idea of TEMPORARILY removing it until it is straightned out. It might be fixable but may not be. Best out of the main space for now at the very least.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In full disclosure I took a look at this map to see how it compares to the one at Gaza War because Sean mentioned to me that there's a similar discussion going on here. I thought I'd share my thoughts. This one is actually a bit better than Gaza War. Although that is mostly because the information is rendered in a less useful way: the red category trumps the blue one. But ulitmately this map has the same failings as the one at Gaza War. We make statements that our knowledge is exhaustive when it is really very limited. I only bothered to write this at all because I happened to notice the odd case of Gabon. The little I know about the country along with my general knowledge about West African politics, Israeli foreign affairs, UN politics, etc. made me think the country was unlikely to be Blue. So I checked the source. It is a discussion of the UNSC meeting from a relatively small Oregon paper.[37] It would be fair to categorize the Gabonaise ambassador's printed statement as Blue. But since the minutes of UNSC meetings are so easily available, I actually looked at them.[38] They include this portion of the statment which was not included in the Salem paper: "This new violence is unacceptable under international law and has already revived tensions that put at risk the indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis that had started three weeks ago. Along with the rest of the international community, my delegation firmly condemns these attacks, which are a hindrance to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." In light of that, Gabon should be Red.

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

Background ( revert by IANVS)

IANVS reverted my edit to the background section leaving a summary "All of this is explained at lenght in the respective articles. Going this way we wouldn't stop detailing related events". What does this mean? Does it mean that since all this is explained in other articles, we don't need to repeat it here? Then why a background section? Then why he did not remove all that is explained in respective articles and chose to retain the text before my edit? I have not made any significant addition to this section except providing some more references and presenting the facts chronologically rather than in the present misleading manner. It seems he wants to retain this and has no excuse to offer and so left this funny edit summary. There are only six sentences in that section and there is nothing wrong in summarising the background (discussed in other articles) in six sentences. I am reverting his edit. Please explain here what is wrong with my edits, if anyone wishes to revert mine. Walky-talky (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The background is about the rationale for the actions of both the flotilla and the IDF. Not about the whole israeli-palestinian conflict. We should only mention the minimum relevant information for context, and the Wikilinks do the rest. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So did I talk about the whole israeli-palestinian conflict there? There was a discussion of the blockade which is relevant to this ( which you also retained); I just introduced some references and clarified what this blockade is, because there is a confusion about Land / Air/ Naval/Egypt / Israel blockades. I just described them, chronologically, in 3-4 sentences. Does it harm? Walky-talky (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is relevant Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#how_it_all_began... Zuchinni one (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here's the comparison:

  • before: 110 words, contained "considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization",
  • after: 165 words. (not counting one word "in", which is erroneously duplicated) contains e.g. "The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel."

Personally, I would prefer the "after" version, because I feel that the blockade is the most salient backgrond issue here, and the description of Israel's aim seems pretty neutral. What do others think? — Sebastian 06:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

55 words is a lot. I'm not saying the current text is not improvable, but User:Walky-talky addenda is too wordy, repetitive and going into an unnecessary level of detail. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IANVS, you have violated the one-revert rule.Walky-talky (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same as you did before me, boy. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think I violated the 1:RR. Anyway, it is clear that you did it on purpose. There are other editors who prefer my version, you are the only one coming up with a new excuse every time. I have removed the sentence "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza" which is clearly a Synthesis. Instead I stated the facts and provided references. You are just citing some lame excuse to retain that sentence; clearly ignoring the discussion here and knowingly violating the 1RR. I request a neutral editor to go through this and revert IANVS ( unless he can produce multiple reliable source to support the "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza" claim and establish its relevance here. Walky-talky (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some other editor already improved the paragraph incluiding some of your edit proposals. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should report what mainstream reliable sources say. But in this article there is a deliberate attempt to shield Israel from the blockade. All the references here point to the blockade by Israel, you have in the legal opinion section, Israel's justification for its blockade, Flotilla was attempting to break the naval blockade declared by Israel, Israel warned against any attempt to break its blockade but when it come to naming Israel, there are hundreds of excuses. One important reference I introduced, which actually deal with the declaration of the blockade has been removed. There is a new statement (and reference )"Arab foreign ministers have also presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas". Is it any relevant here? More relevant than "Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza[18]. " which has been removed? Where are the sources which says that "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza."? And later when quoting the United Nations and human rights groups criticism, it just says blockade while what is being criticiced is the blockade by Israel; not blockade, not Egyptian blockade and not the recently invented Egyptian- Israel blockade. Walky-talky (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Gaza Movement: merge subsection into "Ships in flotilla" section?

Currently, both texts describe the flotilla, and they even contradict each other, with one counting 6, and the other 8. Should these be merged? (BTW, sorry for my earlier error when I deleted that section. I overlooked that that subsection wasn't actually about the Free Gaza Movement, and Prodego was right to revert me.) — Sebastian 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant as background information, as long as it refers to the intentions and rationale. The build-up can be detailed at flotilla section. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead x???

The lead again gives plenty of space to intl reactions and hardly any to the actual battle onboard. Why does this keep on happening? Am I missing a subsection on this talk page discussing it again? The really needs to be more mention of the actual event. It has been confirmed by both sides that they came in before dawn on helicopters. It has been confirmed by both sides that there was a battle between the commandos and some of the activists/passengers/whatever while others moved below deck. The IDF claims of weapons or tools (even if they were not intended to be weapons originally) are pretty well verified. Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Last two paragraphs of lead should be remoced (redundant). Vikipedy (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would help the weight issue but he battle still needs a few lines even if that happens.Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last two paragraphs should be merged and reduced, but the widespread int'l reactions, incluiding UN and links to respective article, are important enough so as to be mentioned in the lead. --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with merging it into one paragraph. What about the actual fighting though?Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actual fighting should be explained at the respective section. Not further details are needed in the lead, at least until some further news modify the over all perspective. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Cptnono here. The Lead has slowing been growing too long ... and primarily with information that is not directly related to the raid. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some reactions should be removed and replaced with more information on what each side claims has happened. Currently the factual details about the event are not given due weight. Marokwitz (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PBS NewsHour summed it up well "Armed Israeli commandos repelled down from helicopters, but were confronted by pro-Palestinian activists wielding sticks, metal bars and knives. Then, in circumstances that are not yet clear, the Israeli troops opened fire."[39] Recent sources are onboard with this.[40] I would also keep "activists say the Israelis opened fire before boarding." Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty good Zuchinni one (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the lead to sharpen the language on the international reaction a bit, since the outrage triggered by the attack appears may be the most important point relating to this attack. (WSJ: "one of Israel's worst international relations disasters in years" http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51698). It doesn't make much difference whether the commandoes or the activists started the violence, so that is something that might be removed from the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might think that the international reaction is the most interesting aspect. That is pretty common in the I-P area. Forget the event, Israel being bad is that is most notable! The mothers of the dead passengers and the soldier who got stabbed might disagree. Some activists who truly wanted to deliver some cement might think that the international reaction is good for their cause but that doesn't mean their cause, voyage, or actual fight is less important. And I completely disagree. Cause and effect. The intl reaction is nothing without the facts of what happened.Cptnono (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead of article

{{editsemiprotected}}{{editsemiprotected}}  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.--Cerejota (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Article says in the lead: The Gaza flotilla raid occurred in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Should be added: Raid occurred in international waters, off the coast of Israel . Vikipedy (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In another location in the article it says: Location: "The Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel and Gaza in international waters". This is not correct. The location was not off the coast of Gaza. This should be removed. Vikipedy (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead

{{editsemiprotected}}  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.--Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead is too long. last two paragraphs - about UN and international reaction - should not be in the lead. Vikipedy (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of those two paragraphs has been hotly debated, although you may need to look through the archived talk section to find it. I suggest that if you feel these need be removed that you elaborate on your reasoning and build a strong case for it using both the previous discussion in the talk section and the Wikipedia Lead section MoS. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On sources being reliable or not

Ok, I read a bunch of discussions and it seems to me some of you childrens need daddy to break this shit down fer yer edifications:

1) A source being reliable is not the sole criteria for including its information - a source must also be presented in an NPOV fashion. This includes due weight, systemic bias, and balance considerations, not just neutral wording.

2) In addition, single reliable sources are not to be used when there is controversy, but verifiability by multiple reliable sources is needed. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE BECAUSE IT COULD RESOLVE 95% OF THE BULLSHIT HERE.: if something comes up in a reliable source, but is not verified by other reliable sources, then this should be considered for exclusion. An example is the San Jose Mercury News reporting of an American bean beaten - since there is no verifiability, this is clear WP:REDFLAG

3) There seems to be confusion as to what makes a source reliable. Please read WP:RS carefully. Primary sources, such as the IDF are never reliable when the information is about anything other than specific information about itself. Nor are partisan publications or organizations.

4) That said, one can include sources that are not reliable if this advances the encyclopedic mission, and they are used to supplement or illustrate information verifiably presented by reliable sources. They should NEVER be used to introduce new information or to make points on their own, including images. So for example, it is ok to include the IDF image of the murderous weapons of hate/peace utencils/whatever you want to call them because this is super verifable and and is referenced in numerous reliable sources.

5) I suggest a thorough study of WP:SYNTH. This article is full of synthy crap. Just because it makes sense in your view it doesn't mean it belongs here.

CHANT TAIM CHILDRENS, REPEAT AFTER ME:


VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!


Understand this, and coast...

Behave. You don't want me unleashing the Armada of Hate on yer whinny asses. Happy edditing!--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's been rebranded as 'not the love boat'. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Events leading up to raid section needs help

The Events leading up to the raid section seems to be out of control with WAY too much commentary and there is a lot that doesn't seem to directly relate. Perhaps this should be cut down and the extraneous information moved to other sections. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect history statement

The following unsourced statement appears in the article: "Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since the Fatah–Hamas conflict that followed the outcome of the Palestinian elections of 2006. ". This is not true, yet my attempts at clarifying this and adding sources were consistently reverted. In 2006-2007 Gaza was governed by the Palestinian authority unity government of which both Hamas and Fatah were members. In the 2007 coup, the Hamas took control of the Gaza strip from the Palestinian authority. Marokwitz (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even need to be in this article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should give at least minimal background information, for people not familiar with the subject. However placing incorrect and over-simplified information is not the way to help the reader. The correct sentence is "Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since it took control of it in 2007 from the Palestinian Authority in the Battle of Gaza." Agreed? Marokwitz (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--86.25.48.172 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We should help the reader get the basic information that they need to understand the historic event, without reading 100 articles, and without providing false and unsourced information. Marokwitz (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support that sentence or a simple copy/paste of the sentence with any refs from the main blockade article. Whatever is simple and consistent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Shalit

It should be added to the background section that one of the justifications Israel uses for upholding the blockade of Gaza is the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas into Gaza. The blockade is uphold, among other reasons, to prevent Hamas from taking Shalit out of the Gaza strip. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While completely true, I'm not sure it is strictly relevant to the issue of this blocked attempt to force banned goods INTO Gaza, and therefore it's place is probably in the article about the blockade. Marokwitz (talk)
  1. ^ (AFP) – 5 days ago. "AFP: Gaza aid fleet undeterred as Israel steps up warnings". Google.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "Israeli PM wants direct talks with Palestinians". Nationalpost.com. 27 May 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  3. ^ "Tensions rise over Gaza aid fleet - Middle East". Al Jazeera English. 28 May 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  4. ^ Joshua Brenner, מיוחד - כתב וואלה! עם כוחות השייטת בלב ים (Special: Walla! reporter with naby forces in the heart of the sea"), Walla!, 1.6.2010
  5. ^ U.N. Security Council meets on Israeli raidBy the CNN Wire Staff June 1, 2010 – Updated 0323 GMT (1123 HKT), CNN.com.
  6. ^ a b Naughton, Philippe and Evans, Judith (1 June 2010). "Turkey demands Israel be 'punished' over Gaza raid". The Times.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ After 12 hours of negotiations that stretched into the early hours, the UN Security Council issued a statement demanding an “impartial” investigation of the deaths and condemning the “acts” that led to it. [41]
  8. ^ Behseer, Margaret (1 June 2010). "UN Security Council Calls for Impartial, Credible Investigation of Israeli Boat Raid". Voice of America. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  9. ^ "NATO Wants Probe Of Israeli Raid". Huffington Post. 1 June 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  10. ^ Lazaroff, Tovah (2 June 2010). "Israel rejects independent probe calls". Jpost.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  11. ^ Sherwood, Harriett (2 June 2010). "Gaza flotilla deaths: pressure builds on Israel for full inquiry". Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  12. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U1VV20100531
  13. ^ http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article442925.ece
  14. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898109,00.html
  15. ^ "Israel's assault on flotilla hands its enemies a victory". USA Today. 2010-06-02. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  16. ^ "Up to 16 killed as Israeli forces storm aid convoy". ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 31 May 2010. Retrieved 31 May 2010.
  17. ^ "Barak: Flotilla organizers to blame". The Jerusalem Post. 31 May 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
  18. ^ Marian Houk (January 04, 2009). ["Israel announces formal naval blockade of Gaza, surrounds Gaza City". American Chronicle. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365805452"