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 85.139.134.239 (talk) at 03:12, 4 June 2010 (→Supplies withheld by Israel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Israelis always first?

Why are the Israeli actions/reactions always listed first? In the interest of neutrality, I suggest that one of the sections, like the legal section, have the non-Israeli section first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.141.189 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to make

It says that in parenthesis that Israel would have allowed the group to deliver the supplies after inspection but I haven't seen anything cited for that, in fact what I seen was the will to stop the boats at any cost:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFki4MerB8GrGJS2hOVmY5UOJm4wD9G000780

can someone provide the reference to that or have that portion in parenthesis deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were many good RS that covered what Israel said, the ref probably just got lost in some editing. Check later in the where this is presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4
I'll add it as a ref to the lead, but you are welcome to suggest a text article as well Zuchinni one (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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'[1] 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)

Article lengths Seems Equal for Ynet, however you may also check translations' accuracy. Kasaalan (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Of course. Just post your translations here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 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]
You know, I don't care noone's views anyway. Opposing or not, in my approach we should clearly represent both sides views for NPOV. You may translate fully or partially where you feel important. As long as the translations are intact, they are helpful. I just listed some links, Ynet is not the greatest source, but if you find better info not available in English feel free to add more sources. After you translate, post here, so other Hebrew speaking users may control the accuracy of translations or use in article. Thanks for the efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The priority is the newspapers who doesn't have English versions. If you came up with anything useful just post here. Kasaalan (talk)

Turkish

Israel did not allow healing the wounded!

tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı 

Israel did not allow healing the wounded!
Nilüfer Ören set a press briefing at IHH with her 13 months old son, Türker Kağan.
Nilüfer Ören who was one of the passengers of the Gaza Flotilla came this morning around 7:00 by THY airplane.
She and her little son Türker Kağan set apress briefing with IHH vice chairman Yavuz Dede at IHH headquarters.
Despite the attack she went through, her morale seemed to be very positive. She stated that 5 people lost ther lives.
Nilüfer Ören who is the wife of the chief engineer of the ship, said that the number of dead increased because Israel
did not allow healing the wounded.
Nilüfer Ören explained everything one by one told; "We departed from İstanbul in May 22nd. Before reaching 90 miles,
2 Israeli  fleet started disturbing tours around 23:00. They told us an attack won't happen if we turn back.
But no one accepted this. After a while the fleet pulled back and nearly 40 navy boats came. Around 04:45, soldiers
from  helicopters started to come down to the ship. At that time an announcement made to us. People in the cabin and
on the bridge stayed just where they were. Bullets came through the cellar of the cabin. Gas and sound bombs were thrown.
The place became just like judgement day. Besides after that we saw everywhere became like blood bath. Gas bombs.
I waited in the cabin with my little son who was afraid of the sounds. I looked at the window severally.
Then they announced us to put our gas masks and life jackets. From the screams coming above, it was understood that
a wild battle was taking place. I opened the door and told that I had a baby and I surrendered. They held me and others
as hostages on the bridge. The hostages were handcuffed and their face turned to wet ground except me, because I had a baby.
At that time I saw the personel were not hurt. They brought us to the deck. They did not allow to aid the wounded immediately.
But anyway they were providing the needs of some others. A medicine was needed at that time and I told that I want to get
it.  While I was getting the medicine, I saw my husband and Bülent Yıldırım. Bülent Yıldırım was not handcuffed.
Also 3 or 4 others were not handcuffed. At first Bülent Yıldırım was very upset but later he saw the need for him
and he calmed  down, started to support us.
Work in progress--Realmegrim (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Davutoğlu - Clinton talks: http://www.haberciniz.biz/haber/israili-iste-bu-sozler-dize-getirdi--839108.html

--Nevit (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes! Do you have a suggestion on adding it or improving the actual article?Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid

  The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid:
  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/actual weapons. (live ammunition not cold weapons or blank shots)
  SRC : When did the assault/raid start?
  MM : I can barely hear you.
  MM : I am sending our (ship's) coordinates. The assault/raid from the helicopter started as of 4.32.
  SRC : Any soldiers arrived from boats? From the boats around/surrounding the ship?
  SRC : Mavi Marmara where did the soldiers arrived from? Did the soldiers came out from boats?
  MM : From boats and the helicopter. There is a raid from the helicopter.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara what is the situation in the other ships?
  MM : Gunfire started again now. Gunfire started again right now.
  SRC : Any attack on other ships?
  MM : Our ship is surrounded. All connection/communication with the other ships is cut/jammed.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara, do you know how many wounded are there in the ship?
  MM : We do not have any information for now.
  SRC : Any deaths?
  MM : Negative. Negative. We have no information right now.

Thanks for whoever translated. I tried to correct the grammar and sea jargon a bit. However someone may help better on jargon. Kasaalan (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]
If there is so much agreement here, how can we describe all the casualties as 'activists'? See "Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid" - do we know their identities, let alone their political or humanitarian motivations? Until we do, this should be changed, I would think. 24.203.231.161 (talk) 15:53, 3 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 [2] 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 [3]). 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 didn't read the interviews. Though a part of the conflict. Haaretz shouldn't be considered as a biased source. On the other hand the captain is thrown by 4-5 people not 20 which is very clear from the video. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 3 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 (;

IDF still didn't release any unedited footage where they are killing activists. IDF only released activist footage. Kasaalan (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting in head confirmed. See below: #American activist among those killed by armed Israeli soldiers --Nevit (talk) 15:17, 3 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: [4] Eldudarino (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol it's no surprise that memri is now in the front line of the PR battle..--Severino (talk) 19:07, 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.[1] Turkey, the Palestinians and Arab states called for condemnation "in the strongest terms" and an independent international inquiry.[2] 12 hours of negotiations were required to come up with a statement that suited all.[2]

The United Nations Security Council's issued statement, which requested an "impartial" investigation of the deaths and condemned those "acts" that led to it.[3]

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.[4]

NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the organization joined calls for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation" into the raid.[5]

Israel rejected calls by the international community for an independent investigation into the raid.[6][7]

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"[8]

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..."[9]

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: [5] 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: [6] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same sentence reverted again, partially by the same editor [7] and partially by another [8] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the second editor [9] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the google translation[10], 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]
When I last looked at it, it wasn't entirely clear to me that he had seen the videos or was just commenting on a description; as long as we make things clear and say nothing more than the article, I have no objection.John Z (talk) 01:32, 4 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]

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:[10]

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 [11] 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]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is inconclusive about listing small numbers of killed persons in articles about notable incidents (it does preclude granting them pages, or providing extended profiles). See the unresolved discussions here. However, within that unresolved discussion the following relevant points are made

  • "Let me come back around to my point, because I think the key difference between where it seems appropriate to list victims and where it is not has to do when 1) it is a relatively small number of victims and that 2) they died at different times, likely by different means and for different reasons. That is, 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."
  • "Lists of the names and other relevant details of people killed in incidents, particularly violent acts, can have intrinsic encyclopedic information: this extends beyond the examples given above where people died in the same event but at different times and places. For example, the ranks or positions of persons killed give some idea of their relative importance in the event: such as those killed in the Brighton bombing, several of whom were notable in their own right. Their ages and nationalities give useful demographic information that can be expressed most neatly and completely in a properly formatted list and a list like this allows the addition of other relevant information, such as people who died later of injuries or those who may have placed themselves in harms way to save others. In theory this can all be written out in the text, but I cannot see a viable reason for forbidding a list when it can do the job much more simply."

Details of raid are sketchy right now but they will doubtless become more clear. Right now, it seems like there's a strong case for name, nationality, ship, and cause of death, for the reasons stated here.--Carwil (talk) 14:43, 3 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]

By saying Youtube is not a RS, are you saying that these videos are forged? I believe these celebrations (If majority are in agree that they are celebrating) have to be included somewhere in the article. I stated that IDF sources are not reliable since they are propaganda material distributed bu an army involved in a deadly clash. These are ordinary videos captured by ordinary people showing the reactions of Israeli people. They are far more a RS that those distributed by Israel army. --Nevit (talk) 13:02, 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]
The issue is one of WP:PRIMARY sources. By insisting on secondary sources we can avoid the WP:POV issues that many editors, from both sides, are trying to introduce. This article is not a soapbox for the IDF. This article is not a soapbox for the flotilla organisers. TFOWRidle vapourings 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a lot of NPOV issues. There are too many Israeli I posted links from eyewitnesses, journalists who where on board etc. But the article has only 330 words from a journalist on board of Israeli ships. The article is ignoring too much of evidence in favor of one view. --Nevit (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the ballons were released in support of the soldiers, this indicates support for the massacre.a trist genre picture...--Severino (talk) 19:35, 3 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]
If we can verify the people chanting a war slogan, and they are telling "Kyhber, o Jews", and they are actually Mavi Marmara activists singing during the travel, we should include it with 1 line. No, MERI translations are questioned big time as well as their POV. Read relevant section. Battle of Khaybar was a siege by Muslim forces against Jewish forces, so it is a war slogan one way or another. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Khaybar was more so a massacre of the Jews as it was time for dhar al hareb to continue, than Muslim forces vs. Jewish forces. The Jews were just trying to live in peace. .Saxophonemn (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PMW is definitely not reliable, it's part of the wider hasbara network and has a clear agenda, which is everything but spreading the truth..--Severino (talk) 19:00, 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]
  • Oppose The article is already fragmented in multiple pieces and hard to follow and understand. --Nevit (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not good to left over framed skeleton. Some stuffing is ok. Do not cut it of since this is informative. Unless the goal is disinformation (is it?) if is it then anyway oppose at lest for now. After investigation, judgment and prosecution it may be however separated since it will grow. What should left is the size of now. Ai 00 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could see spinning it out working. One thing I noticed is that a good portion of the legal opinions say the same thing. It looks like editors are finding sources and just slapping them in. I would recommend consolidating anything to do with the Law of the Sea and intl waters into a single paragraph and simply using "some experts/scolars/whatever" instead of individual paragraphs for each headline found when a local paper sought comment from whatever professor they could get a hold of on the phone.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If we go with the "some experts" approach, then I think it's important to provide reference links to each of the most notable experts' views, if not list the experts outright. Given the politically charged atmosphere, precisely "who" these experts are becomes highly relevant. For example, one expert cited in the article has also suggested that Hammas should increase their rocket attacks on Israel, assuming they are indeed in a state of armed conflict. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above, the article is already chopped all over the place. I think it belongs on this page and only on this page. We don't need a massive tree out of one article. The few branches we have are just fine. Teafico (talk) 00:48, 4 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]
Zuchinni: You said:

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)

Actually, the article says this:

He said he was concerned at the raid taking place in international waters. Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as "completely unacceptable", saying he deplored the loss of life.

Clearly, from the context, "it" is the raid (Israeli, since the protesters didn't "raid" per se).
Hence UK would be red.Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bless, I think you just proved my point about OR. The only bit of the article referring to what Cameron said, that was actually in quotes(""), was "completely unacceptable". So you are making a judgment as to what was being condemned.
A good visual can undoubtedly improve a reader's understanding of an article. But in this case the map seems to add very little, and in fact much of what it does add seems to be confusion ... thus the incredibly long debate about it. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
England is colored red? ;-) These ... countries ... would ... like to remind you about where their foreign policy comes from ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 13:23, 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]
  • Creating sets can not a problem, nor a violation of WP:NOR. Populating these sets is where problems can potentially arise.
  • In almost all cases, either the official (the primary source), or a reliable news article (the secondary source), uses the word "condemn". I don't think its a stretch, when we clearly have a source saying "Y condemned Z", to classify Y as having condemned Z.
  • A couple other countries, don't use the word "condemn", but call Israeli actions "unacceptable". Do you think that constitutes as "protesting" Israeli actions?
  • You pick the RS and statement that's most relevant. If you have an RS that says "Y condemns Z", then you take it. If another RS doesn't say "Y condemns Z", then its likely incomplete for a number of potential reasons (brevity, date published, angle it covers etc.). "How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements." Because almost all of these statements contain, very explicitly, the term "condemn" (either in the original, or in the interpretation by a reliable source). If they do not, we can either take those countries off, or find other ways to include them.Bless sins (talk) 01:53, 4 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.[12] 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.[13] 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]
I think you have a very good point, and I acknowledge my mistake with respect to Gabon. By extension, you may ask, how do we know I haven't made a mistake on other blue countries as well?
Often, media (reliable sources) note not only reactions, but also lack thereof. For example, Canadian and American reactions' lack of "rush to judgement" (a condemnation is a judgment) is contrasted here with other countries' condemnation. So in this case, when a reliable source notes the absence of something, I think we can safely too.
What about Poland and the Vatican city? We would have to find similar sources, or remove them.Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough discussion is done and map can be inserted in article. --Nevit (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think its been carefully discussed and can be added. --JoeJoe11 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ? Did someone respond to the very serious original research/synthesis problems that were raised above ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a lot of support for the map, but I concede there is not yet consensus.
I am disappointed in the attitude of some users. Their attitude is that the map inherently has problems and therefore can't be included under any circumstances. Whereas a more productive attitude would be: the map currently has problems, but we can fix them through discussion.Bless sins (talk) 01:55, 4 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[11]. " 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]

From the BACKGROUND. Israel, which considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization,[THE USA AND THE European union, Egypt and probably most of the world and maybe even most Palestinians consider HAmas a terrorist organization. ] and accuses Hamas of launching thousands of rockets at Israel [Accuses??? aren't rockets a fact -they may not all be credited to Hamas , there are other terrorist organizations given free hand in Gaza who would like to take credit but-- just add them up, the exact number of rockets changes all the time, 3 rockets were fired into Israel today so the word "thousands" should be crossed out. There were thousands during the war but the number is misleading. declared itself to be in a state of war ["state of war" is a legal term and should not be used] Israel is in on-going conflict with the Hamas regime is more accurate. with Hamas-run [English? Gsza run under Hamas regime] AFarber (talk) 22:33, 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."[14] Recent sources are onboard with this.[15] 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]
The opinion that the outrage resulting from Israel's pirate attack may be the most important aspect of this isn't only mine, it's evident in e.g. what the WSJ says in the source I provided. But we don't need to argue this point, there's space in the article to present all relevant facts. --Dailycare (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The international reactions section of the lead grew to a ridiculous point. Cptnono is correct in his statements. There is an entire article devoted to international reactions. That is where most of it belongs ... not in the lead of this one. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[21][22] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[23][24][25]" This is the he said she said bloat that I think some editors were worried about. This rads like editors trying to point the other side regardless of the intent. It is overly emotive and introduces more "nu uh... the other guys were bad" silliness. I recommend removing those lines and substituting with a line simply stating that both sides said they acted in self defense.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cptnono here. The he-said she-said quotes from both sides have been moved into the section of the article that specifically exists to all each side to tell their perspective. We have a lot more information now than we originally did and the lead should be factual as per the WP:LEAD. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is going to be some back and forth though. These two lines are just a little much. Speaking of back and forth, we currently say that "Activists said that the Israelis opened fire before boarding.[20]". Now I do not think that should be removed. I think that is an important enough of a claim from one of the belligerents that it needs to be in. There currently is no "balance" to it but worse is there is not mention of the potential spark. Israel claim that they fired in response to the fighting and maybe even after one of their soldiers was disarmed. I still think that line is needed. It could be something along the lines of "At some point, the Israeli soldiers opened fire, but the sequence of events is not yet clear. Activists said that the Israelis opened fire before boarding while Israel has said that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish" And I think if any investigation shows that the first shot was from an activist taking a weapon and discharging it that it deserves to be prominent in the lead. I seriously doubt I could obtain consensus for that before then but wanted to mention it. Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF claims it fired warning shots across the bow before boarding the ships - as an international signal to stop and be boarded (used when all other means of communications fail). The witnesses on the ship claim the IDF fired before boarding but they have not disputed that these shots were warning shots across the bow. I think it would be fair to say that the claims of both sides do not necessarily contradict each other on these points. Rklawton (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that they may not contradict eachother but they could easily be read that way. This is especially true without your explanation being in the lead. I think there is now not too much service given either way with the recent edit.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 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]

It can be summarized as followed:

  • Election of Hamas in Gaza
  • Conflicts between Hamas and Israel
  • Political decision of blockade by Israel and Egypt
  • Resulting Humanitarian condition in Gaza
  • Previous attempts to solve the problem by several groups (all failed)
  • Decision of Humanitarian groups to confront Israel by breaking the blockage
  • Political decision by Israel to intervene and use force to stop the ship
  • Current conditions

--Nevit (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A lot of that seems to be exactly what was removed from background section because it was getting too long. The article needs to focus on THIS event. There are other articles where people can learn more about the I-P conflict as a whole. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:53, 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]

In free world such coup is called election. Was it? I see persistence to avoid like holy water words: elected, election majority votes. Democracy do not fight so don't cray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 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]
OK. Marokwitz (talk) 11:55, 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)
It's not relevant. This article isn't about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gilad Shalit supporters in Israel have contacted the flotilla officials, before the flotilla took place, and asked them to deliver from them humanitarian aid to Gilad Shalit, since he is held captive, with no visits from his family or the Red Cross. The flotilla officials refused. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That fact may be relevant, if you can find reliable sources . Marokwitz (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the events revolving around the seizure of the flotilla and the resulting skirmish. Shalit is very tangentially related at best and I don't think he should be mentioned. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israelis asked them to break the blockade ? Shocking behavior. :) That might be a notable thing for the Shalit article if it's been in published in some RS. It's not pertinent to this event in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was added before the raid at Free Gaza. I think it is PR from both sides (very little to no secondary overage on the rebuttal though)Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Minister says that Israel would allow the fltilla to Gaza to go on, if Gilad Shalit will be returning with them when they leave. Published on 23/05/10 on HaAretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1170063.html ShalomOlam (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding Gilad Shalit, I refer you to the following article: http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1174-israels-disinformation-campaign-against-the-gaza-freedom-flotilla
The relevant part reads: "Israel claims that we refused to deliver a letter and package from POW Gilad Shalit's father. This is a blatant lie. We were first contacted by lawyers representing Shalit's family Wednesday evening, just hours before we were set to depart from Greece. Irish Senator Mark Daly (Kerry), one of 35 parliamentarians joining our flotilla, agreed to carry any letter and deliver it to UN officials inside Gaza. As of this writing, the lawyers have not responded to Sen. Daly, electing instead to attempt to smear us in the Israeli press.[5] We have always called for the release of all political prisoners in this conflict, including the 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners languishing in Israeli jails, among them hundreds of child prisoners." 82.12.113.64 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. This section should be removed. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "activist(s)"

Not all people on the flotilla were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were injured were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were killed were activists.

In most places in the article, when reffering to a group of people, the use of the word "activist(s)" is wrong, and should be replaced with "people" or "persons" or "flotilla participants". ShalomOlam (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. --Nevit (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed at length here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F and the consensus seemed to agree with both of you that activists is not the right word. It seems to keep getting changed by people who are not reading the discussion. I have no objection to it being reverted to either 'passengers' or 'people' Zuchinni one (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will appreciate it if you change the word "activist(s)" to ""flotilla participant(s)", where appropriate. Thanks. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How tempting is this difference between peoples and attaching forces we should still remember that they should be people to. As any peoples to be prosecuted for crimes especially war crimes. However where there is no contest of those two groups, it they are at once, of course language should use common words for human, not stick to 'activist' since some were more, some less active and possibly some not at all; not to mention agents which IDF stuffed to the boats too (yes they in Israeli press openly talked about it).Ai 00 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898109,00.html

The source numbered 138 gives incorrect information. Please find another source. One of 4 people, Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is not dead. See www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14918897.asp, "Ölmedi yaşıyor", translated to English for who do not know Turkish as follows: öl-me-di yaşa(ı)-yor öl:die, me:not di:past tense, yaşa: live (a turns to ı) yor: present tense Kavas (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm your translation. The article says he had a tel conversation with his relatives. Btw by comparing the lists it seems that there are some who are missing, but it is early to conclude.

--Nevit (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy

WP:NOTAFORUM. Wait until reliable sources comment, then cite them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In history piracy has often blended in with actions by nation states or quasi-national entities. English action against Spanish ships in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries was state-actuated piracy. To rob,intimidate and yes damage the economic structures of the enemy. Buccaneers become pirates and vice-versa. FOR EXAMPLE > The actions of Somali pirates are defended as being tax collection: Peter Lehr, a Somalia piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews says "It's almost like a resource swap, Somalis collect up to $100 million a year from pirate ransoms off their coasts and the Europeans and Asians poach around $300 million a year in fish from Somali waters." ~ The Independent ~ Chicago Tribune http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100103084431AAidrXO

--maxrspct ping me 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Discussion Organized

Sources Against IHH/Organisators

Activist or passenger

Weapons

Casualties

Passenger Accounts

Activists
Crew
Journalists
Politicians
Religious people

Israel Accounts

IDF

Israel views

Goverment
IDF
Media
People

Turkish views

Government
Media
People
Religious

International views

Maritime and International Law

Terms

See also

Video Footage

Israel Defence Force video footage on Youtube
Mavi Marmara live footage
Eyewitness on Mavi Marmara
Israel officials
Israel demonstrators
Turkish demonstrators
International demonstrators/views

List is in progress. I will check links further for original sources. Kasaalan (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Anyone support organisation of discussion titles under categories. Kasaalan (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good work. I appreciate your efforts. If rules permit I suggest it moved directly below Table of Contents. It would be even more useful there. --Nevit (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are the Al Jazeerah and other WP:RS footage of civilian footage from the ship going to be listed explicity under External Links? Listing only IDF footage is very problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==IDF stole journalists footage

Heard Danny Schecter saying this is discussed in Israeli media and found this WP:RS. Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid: media body, AFP. Further searches of terms from that article will add more WP:RS. Somebody should add it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo also Questions Israeli sources. But there are a lot in the article. Who is going to solve the issue?

Israel's military is using video confiscated : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

--Nevit (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue Journalist's account

Journalist's account section has NPOV issues.

There are 3 paragraphs by Israel army's journalist

  • No mention by witness journalists on board.
  • No mention of denial of service to journalists by Israel
  • No mention of Israels withholding of independent journalists tapes and records.
  • 240 words Israel point of view by Israeli Journalist on-board of military ships
  • 110 words BBC By Paul Reynolds (not a journalist on board) & Guardian reporter in Tel Aviv (not a journalist on board)
  • 0 words by Journalists on board of flotilla
  • No pointing to jamming the on-line communication and live broadcasting when the attack was done.
  • No pointing to withholding film photos and cameras by Israel
  • No pointing to arrest of journalists

The section can not be considered neutral by current status.

--Nevit (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fix it on your own. This wiki is overwhelmed by I.I activists. Here was discussion about it dig in archive fore more info. Now I see some progress towards NPOV but it may be related to they relative overworking on multitude of websites and fronts. Another reason is that those in they government headquarters do not scratch they heads enought perhaps individually working how to get each own ass'ets out of it. (se n'yahoo bbgun outcry on hypocritical attack against him) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs)

What is II? --Nevit (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, WP is overwhelmed by I.I activists.. Ok, the whole article was biased in its fisrst version against Israel. Including blatant reapeted removals of notable very well sourced info without even leaving edit summaries. Any version that will not find Israel guilty is biased according to you. And who is the "independent" journalist? Where are your sources? what exactly they say? I oppose entering what you just suggested from obvious reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IDF still didn't released the raw video for parts they killed activists. Kasaalan (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and delete the whole sub-section "journalist's account". It just gave ONE journalist's opinion on the subject. I think it had nothing to warrant the same weight as the official accounts by the two sides of the conflict. Seemed to me that somebody was just trying to add more credibility to his favorite side of the argument... Steloukos (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not necessary to delete the whole section. A more balanced structure, including the Israeli point of view is needed. It is not easy to find what they witnessed or captured even if there was 20-60 journalists on-board. One of the reasons is information is withheld. I found some information below. It should be a discussion what to include and what to not. So I put the links as sources, and some abstract info. I do not know how to deal with copyright when adding from sources to article so leave the job to more experienced users. Non of the journalists were on Israels lands when arrested. They were doing a legitimate job.
Paul McGeough and Kate Geraghty were on-board. They are accredited journalists. They give details about weapons Israel used and the operation.

http://m.smh.com.au/world/i-was-tasered-by-israelis-says-herald-photographer-20100602-wzv3.html http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/israel-blocks-access-to-flotilla-press-and-participants/

South African journalist, Gadija Davids was on board the ship was detained by (IDF).

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-06-02-sa-demands-that-israel-release-journo

CPJ Committee to protect Journalists, independently confirms names of 20 Journalists detained. Says journalists harassed and their equipment was confiscated. Condemns. Request release of journalists.

http://cpj.org/2010/06/israeli-forces-detain-journalists-aboard-humanitar.php

Reporters without borders condemns the censorship attempts related to assault on humanitarian flotilla. Claims the number of Journalists to be 60.

http://en.rsf.org/israel-israeli-military-prevents-media-31-05-2010,37630.html http://en.rsf.org/israel-at-least-60-journalists-were-02-06-2010,37646.html

--Nevit (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the reason I deleted was that the paragraph only dealt with the account of one Israeli journalist that accompanied the IDF raiding party. As it was, it made no attempt to make a neutral presentation of worldwide journalist coverage. The links you provided seem very interesting, now if anyone decided to make a little summary of them and create the section again? :) Steloukos (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the international reaction as "outrage" in the lead

My edit was reverted with a comment that "outrage" would be POV. Here are ten sources that use the term outrage in connection with the international reaction. I know that there is a separate article about the reaction, but the lead should characterize the main points, which the reaction surely is. Also, the lead does currently mention the reaction, what I'm suggesting is to just replace "widespread international reactions" with "widespread international outrage", which is more accurate (one country even severed diplomatic contacts with Israel) and sourced at least in these ten WP:RS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The separate article is named "Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid". I think it will be better if the word "reaction" is used in both places. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ractions is the main part of article. Outrage as a word summarizes the international reaction. And it is well documented. The rest and details can be put in a separate article. --Nevit (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just quote and attribute 'outrage' to a source? It's prett hard to claim the Der Spiegel or CNN didn't report it..--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the international reaction as "outrage" is POV, not neutral. This is also not true, since it is a generalization of some reactions. Not all international reactions were outrageous. ShalomOlam (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction of the international community is misrepresented in this article. There is a striking mismatch between the sources and us both in terms of language and weight. That's a mandatory policy non-compliance issue that has to be addressed. It's not going to fix itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the international reaction was outrage is well sourced and it's either the majority view or at least one of the most significant views. The proposed wording doesn't claim that every reaction would have been outrage, just that the attack provoked widespread international outrage, which according to the sources listed e.g. above is certainly true. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare is right about the overall characterization, while others are correct that its POV to characterize all of the international reactions. Why not rephrase as International reaction to the raid (wikilink ends here) included widespread outrage as well as other responses.--Carwil (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American activist among those killed by armed Israeli soldiers

The New York Times is reporting a U.S. citizen among the dead.--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information:

  • Furkan Dogan, 19, was a Turkish-American traveling with a US passport, Anatolian said. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, the agency said.[16]
  • "The dead include a 19-year-old Turkish citizen with an American passport - who was hit by four bullets in the head and one in the chest"[17]
  • "NBC News reported that among the nine slain was Furkan Dogan, 19, who was born in New York, returning to his family's homeland, Turkey, at the age of two."[18]

--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Request addition of material to protected article.--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: another editor appears to have already added this to the article. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whose blockade is this anyway? Requesting third opinion

I was recently reverted when I changed the Background section to this:

In June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after winning local elections, Israel and Egypt sealed their borders with Gaza. The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. Egypt closed its borders saying it did not recognise the authority of Hamas in Gaza.[12] In September 2007, following rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements, Israel declared Gaza strip a "hostile territory" and tightened its blockade [13]. Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza[14]. These, along with the control of Gaza's airspace by Israel, resulted in a complete blockade of Gaza. The United Nations and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the blockade by Israel, calling it collective punishment of the Palestinian people, as it restricts the flow of materials for basic needs and for reconstruction of infrastructure and homes that were either destroyed, or severely damaged by Israel, in the Gaza War.[15][16]

The passage I quoted above illustrates what the significant events in the blockade of Gaza. Almost all reliable sources report the events as:

  1. Israel and Egypt both closed their borders when Hamas took over Gaza.
  2. Israel later declared a naval blockade of Gaza.
  3. The UN and various international agencies criticized the Israeli blockade and called for its withdrawal.
  4. Free Gaza movement announced their mission against the Israeli blockade / siege.
  5. Israel says its blockade is legal, justified; any attempt to break it is a violation of international law and warns against any attempt to do so.
  6. Free Gaza movement goes ahead and attempts to break the Israeli naval blockade.
  7. Israel intercepts the ships, leading to this event, says as per laws governing maritime blockade, it is authorized to do so; to enforce its blockade.

But we are not supposed to use the term Israeli blockade in this context. The situation is turning even more hilarious now. The initial reason for reverting my above quoted edit was that it was covered elsewhere. Now after removing the term Israeli blockade, and putting a synthesized statement “Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza” someone has inserted material regarding "Arab ministers …united front against control of the border by Hamas” and about an incident where a Palestinian fisherman died off Rafah in a clash with an Egyptian navy. Closing one’s borders, preventing smuggling across one’s border ,etc. is not blockade. In many parts of the world there are incidents involving fishermen straying into neighboring country’s border/ clashes. Even this insignificant incident (look at its coverage) is deliberately introduced here just to construct a narrative that can be seen only in Wikipedia ( or in some Israeli propaganda). There is no need to do OR here but it is obviously UNDUE. Even in the next sentence, whose references are talking about the UN criticism of the Israeli blockade, the term Israel is omitted. Similar is the status of the compromise reached about the first paragraph. The strategy followed is clear; whenever the Israel action regarding blockade is mentioned, mention some incident involving Egypt as well (Undue or not). If there aren’t any, and if it is clearly about Israeli blockade (like its criticism), remove Israel and just mention blockade.

I suggest that, wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context.

In short, call a spade a spade.

I request all editors to express their opinion on this topic which is central to this article ( not just to any section) to build a consensus.Walky-talky (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walky-talky you have done a good and objective work. Some users may criticize specific points according to their affiliations that is not my point. It seems to be too long for me. But how can one balance such a complicated matter without omittance of major issues? Perhaps a short list without going into details will suffice. The rest can be read from main article. --Nevit (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the most NPOV way to do this would be to "Gaza Blockade" without any country names and have it link to the article on the Blockade so that people can get all the information there. This article should not be the place where we discuss questions about the nature of the blockade. That should be done in the blockade article. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is simple and short. Wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context. We are here to report what the main stream reliable sources say. Calling a a spade a spade is not POV. Some editors seem to have some objection to this usage; but that's how the media report; the UN says; the FGM says; Isreal says. We just need to follow it. I am not saying we should give all the details of the blockade. But it can be summarised ( even mentioning the role of Egypt) in 3-4 sentences to make it absolutely NPOV. Look at the Background section now; it gives as much details as possible ( even the rocket attacks) except mentioning the blockade declared by Israel and avoiding the term Israel while mentioning the UN criticism ( though it is unambiguously a criticism of Israeli blockade). Please compare it with my reverted version.Walky-talky (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Casualties" section

I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might be wrong, but I thought the word casualties refers to deaths. If that's true, how come there is a paragraph on IDF casualties? Is there any death among the IDF soldiers? If however the word casualties can also refer to wounded, why there is no mention of the wounded on the paragraph about the activists?

I'm sorry but in my eyes this seems like covert POV-pushing, in the sense that there are two paragraphs of equal size and similar wording about two distinctly unequal events. the death of some people on one side, and the injuries of some on the other (who just happened to be the attackers by the way).Steloukos (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word casualties can also refer to wounded. The infobox says 60 injured so maybe the sections/infobox need to be aligned + updated with newer sources. I'm not sure that the paragraph sizes is a big deal in this case. Maybe you can find details about the injured, the nature of their injuries and add it. I guess those details will be coming out soon if not already. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at casualty.  &#151;Rafi  15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Remove Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legal_observations_and_opinions

I think the undue wieght tag on this section is accurate. Per WP:NOTOPINION, I think this section really ought to be deleted or least turned into a stub and majority of the content be moved to a seperate article. Anyone want to second my motion? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sorta interpret WP:NOTOPINION to mean that WP shouldn't be a platform for opinions regarding current events. Offering quasi-notable opinoins in this manner seems equivelent to soapboxing. A section which simply offers opinions rather than facts about a current event is a defacto opinion piece. It's poor practice and unencyclopedic. NickCT (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete. Just create a WP:FORK then WP:SUMMARY. 85.101.137.178 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 85.101.137.178 - I did propose that possibility when I said "turned into a stub .... moved to a seperate article" NickCT (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there may be an investigation and that the Israeli courts are hearing cases it seems there is some notability here, but the section should probably be summarized off.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. Legal or not. I think that this section should be deleted. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomen Nescio - I think you are missing the crux of my argument. I fully acknowledge the difference between opinions of editors and those of notable individuals. I'm not saying it's always wrong to insert notable opinion about an event into that event's article. What I am saying is that having a large section dedicated to relaying opinions from semi-notable individiuals feels like it might contradict the spirit of WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAPBOX, & WP:NOTABILITY.
I put it to you that if the opinions of law proffessor from Harvard are notable in the context of this article, then there are potentially thousands of opinions of various individuals that ought to be included here.
Anyway, I think the consensus here is for the material to be summarized. I may give this a go when I get some time, but I'd invite other editors to have a go at it if they're free. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "pro-raid" opinion section appears to be dregged quite thin with even a long quotation from some "commander's handbook" in order to give the reader the (false) impression that neutral legal observers wouldn't have a clear opinion on this. WashPost writes quite cogently that "Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law is among those who believes the raid was illegal. "That's what freedom of the seas are all about. This is very clear, for a change. I know a lot of prominent Israeli attorneys and I'd be flabbergasted if any of them disagreed with me on this," he said.". That looks like good material for the summary. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Image from Turkish WP clearly shows IDF shooting activists

File:Mavi Marmara Opeasyon.jpg
While IDF Soldiers attacking on activists. Source Cihan

I think whoever created this section meant this picture Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is acreenshot from TV and does not show much. --Nevit (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A work by a Brasilian Cartoonist

WP:NOTAFORUM. The Brazilian government's reaction may be notable. A Brazilian cartoonist's reaction is not.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This file should be included into the International reactions section 76.112.225.183 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image seems a little imflammatory. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And not particularly notable to the event.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To say the least. The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey knowledge, not to promote certain points of view. Marokwitz (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this is not a forum, I am going to assume discussion of the image is over.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Over. NickCT (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nonviolent resistance

The article states the activist were trained in nonviolent resistance. There is no RS to support this, so it was removed in the past, but someone has now returned it. It should be removed again (since there is no RS). ShalomOlam (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've tagged. NickCT (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on IDF footage

The caption has seen some POV warring and it's about time to discuss it directly.

If you watch the video it is unquestionable that these are activists beating a soldier who is on the ground. The POV dispute is only whether this happened before or after the soldiers "attacked." The current caption does not explain this well. I therefore propose the following caption:

Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists beating a fallen soldier on the deck.

I think that should satisfy NPOV and adequately explain the image.  &#151;Rafi  16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just say 'The IDF released this snapshot which it says "..."' or 'Source X reported ""'. This would make it much harder for there to be any dispute.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Nosfartu said. Neatly sidesteps dispute. This solution works with WP:PRIMARY sources from the flotilla, too. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do reliable secondary sources not connected to the IDF, the MFA or to the Israel-Palestine conflict describe this image e.g. BBC, China Daily, whatever ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Sean.hoyland said. Even better suggestion. If WP:SECONDARY sources have published the image we should use them instead. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I believe the BBC discusses the video the image is from here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen most news outlets have just linked to or embedded the Youtube video. That's part of why I want an explicit caption; what's happening is much more clear in the video than in the image. I think "published by the IDF" is adequate qualification for NPOV.  &#151;Rafi  16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the [BBC, the Christian Science Monitor embeds the video here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists attacking a soldier who just landed on the deck." That's how the CSM you cited describes it.  &#151;Rafi  17:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading this and wanted to point out WP:PRIMARY says to not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source, because any interpretation of any primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. These are quotes from the article:
  • The Christian Science Monitor wrote "this grainy, black-and-white footage shows Israeli commandos getting attacked in what the Foreign Ministry calls "life-threatening and violent activity." "
  • The Christian Science Monitor reported "pro-Israel activists, meanwhile, say Israeli commandos were attacked by pro-Palestinian activists armed with slingshots, knives, and metal bars as the commandos rappelled from helicopters down onto the Mavi Marmara"
  • The Christian Science Monitor quoted Ms. Yedidia of the Israeli consulate as saying "they were there to provoke Israeli forces".
--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to "shows Israeli commandos getting attacked." I don't think my caption proposal contains anything "interpretive" or "synthetic" regarding the image in question.  &#151;Rafi  17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with quoting Ms. Yedida of the Israeli consulate, or the other proposals?--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's interpretive. Someone could put 'people acting in self defense against an armed assault by soldiers on their boat' and it would be no better or worse a description if it were attributed to the people who think that is what it shows. We should keep these things simple, neutral, RS based and make absolutely sure we aren't promoting a specific interpretation/narrative and excluding others if there are conflicting views. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's go back to "beating" rather than "attacking." That's the most objective description I can think of. I got "attacking" from CSM.
To 70.236.71.25: The image's caption should also be concise and describe the image precisely. Do you have a specific proposal that would accomplish this?  &#151;Rafi  17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the image and caption here is better: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/middleeast/02media.html  &#151;Rafi  17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC caption on a similar image, in the set of images in the link above says "The Israelis say their soldiers were set upon and beaten with bats, chairs and metal poles as soon as they boarded the Mavi Marmara. Activists say the soldiers attacked them first." i.e. they present both narratives. The BBC also use a caption that says something as simple as 'showing the violence on board the flotilla' i.e. ignoring both narratives. The NYT example you posted seems to also take the second approach, no narratives. I don't know which is the best approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either approach seems good to me, but ignoring both narratives may be easier in small spacial constraints.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this image is in the Israel's account section; NPOV still applies, of course, but the basis for having the image is the video's importance to the Israeli account. I still argue that "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists hitting/beating/attacking a fallen soldier on the deck" is a fair description of what the image shows and where it came from.  &#151;Rafi  18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we have to take the idf footage with a pinch of salt i'd say as it's the army who has committed the massacre. overmore it's well possible the video was manipulated. the very least one can catch is that they didn't publish those passages which show the killings. also, they have confiscated cameras and mobile phones of the activists (and still not given back).--Severino (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal: "Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods hitting a fallen soldier."

  1. Keep IMFA as the source; possibly add Washington Post or Ynet as sources as well.
  2. Attribution given to IDF so that possible biases in the source are clear.
  3. "Hitting" is neutral language.
  4. "With rods" because multiple activists had rods, not readily apparent in this snapshot.
  5. "Fallen soldier" supplies information from the previous seconds of video not seen in this snapshot.
  6. No mention of narratives regarding who attacked first or was to blame.

 &#151;Rafi  20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafi, you keep promoting the IDF narrative. Why is that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death(s)

Once again, someone has reverted the article, to state that there were "Nine activists" dead. When there is no RS that says that all nine dead were in fact activists. This should be replaced to "people" or "civilians". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or "passengers"? Agree that "activists" is not good - there were parliamentarians and journalists among the passengers, we do not yet know for sure that all the dead were "activists". TFOWRidle vapourings 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was objection for "passengers". I also suggested in the past the possible use of the term "flotilla participants". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of off-topic, but who did this? It's awesome! We should make it a sticky or something.
Back on topic, I was fairly certain there was consensus for not using "activist", but it's possible there's also no consensus for an alternative. I'm happy with "flotilla participant", I'm happy with "passenger" (subject to discovering what the problem with it was). I'm happy with anything neutral.
TFOWRidle vapourings 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Civilians would be a more appropriate term. Since there were no soldiers on the fleet. --Nevit (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that either "people" or "flotilla participants" should be used, since this is the most neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"People" is ambiguous: soldiers are people, too. "Flotilla participants" is a bit unwieldy, but is unambiguous. I suppose the real issue is: how do sources describe these non-military people on the boat or boats heading towards Gaza? TFOWRidle vapourings 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many RS's use "activists."  &#151;Rafi  17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all. But that was not the point: It is okay to use "activists" when you are reffering to a group of people that are ALL activists. But in the article, in some cases, it is not so. Only in those places the word "activists" should be replaced. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AP, Rueters, etc., take your pick: http://news.google.com/news/search?&q=nine+activists+died  &#151;Rafi  17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I pick the one about Congo? ShalomOlam (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I immediately regretted the link to Google News. But you get my point.  &#151;Rafi  17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers Made Sure None Survived

Bodies arrived in Turkey all show at least on shot in close range.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/report-aid-flotilla-victims-shot-dead/

I believe this should be included in article.

--Nevit (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shot at close range would back up the IDF side, that they only fired in self defence - only those that approached with a knife or a club enough to be threatening to the IDF life would be shot.
I have noticed that Nevit is quite a POV pusher. I request that you try to be more neutral when approaching this article. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some had multiple shots and one with close shot. This is new evidence. Most of them where shot lethally not in foot or other place but directly. I agree that "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV. But it is not more a POV than they had sticks. I did not add the evidence to article directly instead added here to be discussed. My POV is what Israel did is wrong. But I believe that the article should remain neutral. --Nevit (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


From the article you referenced:

"Forensic experts in Istanbul found bullet marks on the bodies of all the victims and determined that one was shot at close range. The experts said the exact circumstances of the activists’ deaths would become clear in a balistics examination that would take about a month to complete.""

Even if the source is NPOV it seems that there is no conclusive evidence of anything yet. This should not go into the article yet. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is getting more complete more details of killings are revealed. According to eye-witness photographer Cevdet Kılıçlar was shot in head when he was taking photos.

http://www.medya365.com/haber-101998-fotograf-cekerken-israil-askerlerince-olduruldu.html

I agree with you that we have to wait about one month to see whether Israeli army fired a final shot to injured or not. But we can quote the source to say some had near and far shots, and all had near shots. The source is AA a major news agency. --Nevit (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about one thing though. What exactly is far and what is near? Unless we can get some real metric I think this should not be included. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on your talk page. Those interested can look there. --Nevit (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we'll all soon find out that the killed were in their 60's

...and when we do, we can cite reliable sources. Until then, this page is WP:NOTAFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

we'll all soon find out that the killed were in their 60's (67.169.146.118 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

pro-Palestinian(?) activists

The lead sentence says flotilla was carrying 663 pro-Palestinian activists. What does pro-Palestinian means?Baharyakin (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested all attributions relating the group to a religion or race be removed. See discussions above. The group itself defines the motion as humanitarian. The term pro-Palestinian is deliberately introduce to discredit the group. --Nevit (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you see above, it was a provocative action against Israel, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians" (Greta Berlin, organiser) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means that they support Palestinian position over Israeli position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree w/ Nevit. Agree w/ Shalom. I think pro-Palestinian is 1) Clear to anyone who has even the slightlest understanding of I/P issues, 2) accurate, 3) Hard to contrue as an attempt to "discredit the group". NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a propaganda method. IDF earlier attributed the activists to Al-Qaeda etc. etc. But withdraw later. Humanitarian is what the group defines itself. If you do not agree on Humanitarian it is better to leave name without a attribution.

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

--Nevit (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I would agree with both "Humanitarian" and "ProPalestinian". Could I propose, "663 pro-Palestinian, humanitarian activists,[6] as well as journalists and dignitaries from 37 nations,[7] known collectively as the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it without any attribution and just making a link to their respective page. There are pro-Israeli views that believe they had missions other than Humanitarian aid. They will object to humanitarian. The topic can be elaborated there. --Nevit (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They DID have other missions other than Humanitarian aid. They said so themselves: they wanted to break the blockade of Gaza. In many people's POV, breaking blockades is an act of war, not of a humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humanitarian is accurate. Some may (some or many of them) also have been pro-Palestinian. Remove pro-Palestinian please. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Gaza refused to receive the flotilla's cargo from Israel, there is doubt that the cargo was in fact needed as humanitarian aid in Gaza. So maybe instead of writing that they were humanitarian, it's more neutral to write that THEY claim they are humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence is wrong. The cited source (the Associated Press) says: HAIFA, Israel — Hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists... There's no sign of "663" anywhere in the source. I think we need to be careful to make clear that not all the passengers were necessarily "pro-Palestinian". There were journalists and parliamentarians on board, too. Incidentally, I think in this context it's fine to say "activist" - it was the (pro-Palestinian) activists who intended to go through the blockade; the other passengers were aboard for their own reasons. Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TFWOR. The problem here is that there were so many different people on the boat for different reasons that it does not make sense to lump them all into one group. There is an entire article devoted to the people on board the flotilla. The lead should remain as neutral as possible and not make any factual assumptions. This has been discussed repeatedly Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F, here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Use_of_the_word_.22activist.28s.29.22, and elsewhere. The terminology of Pro-Palestinian and Activist may be OK, but the problem is lumping everybody into specific groups. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fair to call them "humanitarian activists" as their mission was to bring humanitarian aid to a "ghetto".--Severino (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Shalom stated above, the term humanitarian is self claimed by the group. We can use it only if it is accepted by other sources. I prefer not to use anything if it can not be verified. --Nevit (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that while some of them were undoubtedly Humanitarian there have been people claiming that others were intentionally trying to become martyrs, and others were journalists whose accounts have been quoted and assumed to be NPOV. So my problem is just trying to put all the different people together into a single group. Thus I support a neutral term like passengers or people. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both are neutral terms. OK for me.

The martyr video published by Israel came to be a previous shot by Iranian state-run TV. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

--Nevit (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicosia not costal town, can't repair ships - please change

The US-flagged Challenger II, a Free Gaza Movement ship, was also unable to join the rest of the flotilla due to mechanical problems.[48] It is currently undergoing repairs in Nicosia, Cyprus.[64] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.113.178 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy journalism, and we copied them ;-) I've fixed the text and added a cite for "northern Cyprus". TFOWRidle vapourings 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Famagusta[19][20] --JGGardiner (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're both for Challenger I, not II (though I believe both I and II went to the same place). Incidentally, I left the old ("Nicosia") source in place, as it was named and I didn't want to break any other uses of it... if any kind editor could see their way to rectifying that, I'd be ever so obliged ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that. I definitely went looking for Challenger I. I'm not sure why I made that mistake. Perhaps because the businessday article just says "Challenger". As for C2, according to this they went to Limassol.[21] --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre refs

See this. The Scotsman newspaper describes the victims as "murdered" in the headline and as "massacred" in the text. The Irish Evening Herald (Part of the Independent Group) called it a "massacre" and used the word in a page-wide headline the day afters the murders. Sarah777 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"massacre" is a word which is loaded with political overtones. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massacre is over-toned. Killings is enough for describing, considering the number of casualties. --Nevit (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "massacre" is too heavy of a word here. Killings works just fine. Maybe if most people on a ship were killed, massacre would work, but that's not the case here. It wasn't a massacre, they were killings. Teafico (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the word "massacre". Soldiers killed civilians deliberately, outside "their" territory. Is there a number (of victims) from which on a killing is a massacre?--Severino (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of RS are not using the word massacre. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were not civilians are they have taken war action by trying to break military blockade also they were armed so they couldn't be considered civilians.Shrike (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were civilians (i.e. not soldiers) and they were nowhere near the blockade (which in itself is illegal) and they weren't armed. If there was any actual weapons (other than ordinary cutlery and common tools) I'm quite sure the IDF would have shown them by now. // Liftarn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falk

I removed the Falk quote because it wasn't sourced and I couldn't find it on the internet - even when searching for words used directly within quotes. Other than lack of sourcing, I have no objection. Rklawton (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Nosfartu (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix. What search engine did you use? Google appears to have failed me. Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google never fails. I searched for part of the quote, someone had changed the other part of it apparently.--Nosfartu (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MV Mavi Marmara

Has a reliable source come forward to explain why the MV Mavi Marmara (the ship with all the fatalities) was reflagged (changed its registry) from Turkey to Comoros immediately prior to embarking from Turkey? I just read about it and would like to know more - but even the reflagging isn't mentioned in the article at present. Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See relevant discussion at Talk:MV Mavi Marmara. It isn't entirely clear that it is not Turkish flagged still.John Z (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this belong in the Israel Military Accounts section?

The Foreign Press Association, which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and the Palestinian territories, has complained the Israeli military seized video and equipment from dozens of reporters on board the main ship. The FPA says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. FPA also criticized Israel's use of captured material without permission.[17]

This seems to be in the wrong place. I will move it would be best to put it in the Media responses section of the International reactions article.

I have archived it here if it is decided to move it back to the Israel Military Accounts section. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather it placed in Journalist's account section. The Journalists account section may include
  • IDF photo and videos.
  • Israeli Journalist's
  • Independent journalist's
  • Press organisations.

I already posted some links above #NPOV issue Journalist's account. There is rapidly growing amount of data of eye-witness journalists around the web. They should be collected, drafted and discussed.

--Nevit (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be a journalist account though. But rather a complaint from an international body of journalists. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the FPA text should be in the Israel Military Accounts section since it is directly connected to it and explains the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate places for the accounts of flotilla passengers and the Israeli military precisely because both sides disagree on the events. At best a shortened version of this might be OK for the flotilla passengers section. But it is a reaction from an international body, not a direct account. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part in the flotilla passengers section is not enough, it doesn't explain that Israel is cherry picking the videos. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that says Israel is cherry picking the videos? Or is that your own bias? If you've got a source, then we should mention it along with the videos so readers know the videos are one-sided. Without a reliable source, it's also reasonable some may believe that Israel has hours worth of video from multiple angles that show very little of interest and that they've simply edited it down to more succinctly tell the story. Picking one side or the other without a reliable source would be just unbearable POV. Rklawton (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme, I think you make a good point about the accusation of cherry picking videos. I'm not suggesting that you remove the accusation, just that it be placed in a more appropriate section. Here is the wording I would suggest:
The Foreign Press Association says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. [18]
That could go into the flotilla accounts section. Sound good?
I still think it should be right after the: "The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident" in the Israeli section ,its better that way for people reading the article instead of spreading it over several sections. He who reads the Israeli section might not read the other section, so he wont get the full picture. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to Rklawton, the reference that Supreme provided does is from the AP, a very RS and it suggests that Israel is cherry picking. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the source above. It's the AP (reliable) citing FPA claims. But it's really important to note the FPA isn't neutral in this matter. So it's important to differentiate between claims made by a neutral press and a neutral press quoting a non-neutral organization's claims. Rklawton (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about quoting the FPA, Rklawton. I don't know much about them as a group though. Are they not considered an RS? Zuchinni one (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it is presented as from the "FPA" there is no problem, reliable or not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPA - anyone want to start an article on this organization? A brief look at their board of directors indicates they're sufficiently notable. We can sort out issues neutrality there, too. My opinion is that they aren't neutral. However, my opinion amounts to zero :-) here (as it should be). Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To any interested, the group puts some information about itself here and here.--99.50.129.231 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AFP also wrote an article about FPA saying "Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid".--99.50.129.231 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V Checks

I know these articles can expand quickly and WP:V issues will get overlooked. So I thought I'd start checking some sources for WP:V problems. So I'm starting from the bottom with the "Aftermath" section.

"They are also organizing a new flotilla to try to breach the blockade in early Fall." Source doesn't mention this at all.

In the "Legal Analysis" section:

We have Diana Buttu saying that "a call to the applicability of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement is not plausible". But in the source she says only that Israel's actions diminish the plausability of the argument, not that it is not plausible at all.

"Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Doesn't have a source at all. I thought perhaps it was just to introduce several of those opinions but we actually only have one.

"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law Craig Murray..." The note is after the word "law". The source says Murray was the head of the maritime section for Whitehall, not that he was a maritime law specialist, maritime lawyer or a lawyer at all. Our article on the man suggests he is not.

Actually that was better than I was expecting. Though the legal section is mostly just full of quotes. I'll check some more later --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! And we may want to ditch the Murray paragraph. If he isn't a lawyer, then his opinion on law isn't relevant - and a lot of his quote revolves around Turkey, though the main part of this incident didn't happen on a Turkish ship. At the time he wrote his opinion, this fact wasn't available. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph should is "cargo" not "aid" . You can say that the cargo is intended or purported to be humanitarian aid but you cannot inspect aid. AFarber (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality plea

I'm only going to make a few edits - maybe even only one - because I hate getting involved in edit wars. I do hope, that WP:NPOV will prevail, and that no one will insist on presenting the POV of the flotilla organizers (and their legions of international supporters) as the only "true" one.

Rather, we should duck any conclusions and simply report what pro-flotilla and anti-flotilla sources have said:

  1. that the flotilla's primary purpose was to bring in humanitarian aid
  2. that its primary purpose was to break Israel's naval blockade against terrorists
  3. that unarmed, peaceful aid workers were attacked for no good reason, in violation of international law
  4. that the flotilla contained armed personnel who launched a violent surprise attack on troops enforcing a perfectly legal naval blockade

Rather than relying purely or mainly on journalistic sources sympathetic to Hamas (or hostile to Israel, which amounts to the same thing), can we try to find a balance between both viewpoints and simply describe every assertion in terms of A said B about C? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we also don't need to rely on sources sympathetic to IDF and their international supporters (or hostile to palestinians and humanitarian activists).--Severino (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gaza flotilla takeover

would be a better name.

they used raid 'cause that's what the american media used. --212.54.207.223 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (with that ugly spelling)

He (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is alive, see above discussion. Please stop adding that he died. Kavas (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even experts are wrong sometimes

The ship was not sailing under a Turkish flag so the following paragraph is irrelevant. It is uninformed speculation in a section that is already bloated. Easy enough mistake to make with the reporting not being completely clear but it looks like there was some misunderstanding:

"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law [182] Craig Murray explained that the raid was not an act of piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission, but said that it would be "an act of illegal warfare". According to Murray, the Law of the Sea rules that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred, so the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. If the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships, Israel would be in a position of war with Turkey, and the act would fall under international jurisdiction as a war crime. If, on the other hand, the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction and if Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.[183]"

Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, correct. The ship WASN'T Turkish-flagged, it was Comoros-flagged. Wouldn't this mean Comoros itself could be at war with Israel? Of course, the whole statement is wrong because the MV Mari Marmara wasn't Turkish-flagged, so shouldn't we get rid of it? Being irrelevant thanks to misinformation. Teafico (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus

I find the characterization "de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)" quite awkward. Can we not keep references to this territory NPOV? I think just "Northern Cyprus" should suffice. The reader can then follow the link to the article on Northern Cyprus and read more about it. There is no need for politically motivated name-dropping here. Letus (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a NPOV is appropriate for Cyprus as it relates to the Gaza flotilla raid. The only thing that makes sense to is have separate section within this article to cover, in extreme detail, the entire history of the Turkey/Greece Cyprus dispute going back to the time when the continents were joined and Cyprus was part of a larger landmass. We will also need all relevant opinions of the Cypriot dispute as voiced by the passengers of the flotilla and the people who read about the incident in their local newspapers. Additionally will probably need thousands of good RS as well as links to all relevant Onion articles that covered this topic. It will be a lot of work ... but absolutely worth the effort. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is quite cumbersome. One valid reason to have a more detailed reference here would be that "Northern Cyprus" is placed in direct contrast with "the government of Cyprus" in the sentence. A reader unaware of the situation, but puzzled why the ships could not sail from "Cyprus" but were able to leave from "Northern Cyprus" can follow the link as you say, but we can also save him some time reading the lead of that article with a small explanatory addition like "Turkish-controlled" (or something similar) in front of Northern Cyprus. Or maybe a rephrasal like "embarked instead from Famagusta, in the Turkish-Cypriot[s'] part of the island". In any case, simplicity prevails over detailed formalisms.--GroGaBa (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too Long Rule of Thumb - What should we split?

According to the Wikipedia Too Long (Rule of Thumb) this article needs to be split up.

"A rule of thumb

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

The article is currently (110,761 bytes) so it seems the main question now is not whether to split it up, but rather what sections should be split off.

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that it is readable prose which is much less than what the history page counts up. I agree that some things need to be trimmed but it is not yet technically a problem under the length standards but weight.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning of Raid

I think The Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance by Max Blumenthal, based on and translating parts of a pre-raid Ma'ariv article should be used in "Events leading up to the raid". Finding, using and translating the original Ma'ariv article should also help.John Z (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplies withheld by Israel

On the article's lead it reads:

"The vast majority of the cargo (8000 of the 10,000 tons) is thought to have been withheld by Israeli authorities and not offered Gaza."

This is technically not true as most (all?) of the withehld items were building materials like cement which are far heavier than other items like food or medicine. In truth, the flottila could be filled with medicine and rubber toys, while having a few cement parcels lying around, and the weight would still mark cement as "the majority". Thus the withheld items could actually be a small minority of the full cargo - a very heavy minority - while this line can be interpreted as if israeli authorities withheld most of the cargo, which may very well be false, unless some source states that building materials did in fact make up for the majority of the parcels. As such, I suggest a re-phrase to keep un-aware readers from getting wrong information.

Activists wielding weapons

"According to Israeli sources they were confronted by a number of activists supposedly wielding sticks, metal bars and knives."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it is proven they were wielding sticks and metal bars, and acknowledged by both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybuKkXV-xUI (2:35, 3:14, 6:22~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diecinque (talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ U.N. Security Council meets on Israeli raidBy the CNN Wire Staff June 1, 2010 – Updated 0323 GMT (1123 HKT), CNN.com.
  2. ^ 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)
  3. ^ 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. [22]
  4. ^ Behseer, Margaret (1 June 2010). "UN Security Council Calls for Impartial, Credible Investigation of Israeli Boat Raid". Voice of America. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  5. ^ "NATO Wants Probe Of Israeli Raid". Huffington Post. 1 June 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  6. ^ Lazaroff, Tovah (2 June 2010). "Israel rejects independent probe calls". Jpost.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  7. ^ Sherwood, Harriett (2 June 2010). "Gaza flotilla deaths: pressure builds on Israel for full inquiry". Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  8. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U1VV20100531
  9. ^ http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article442925.ece
  10. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898109,00.html
  11. ^ 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)
  12. ^ Carlill, Bren (2 June 2010). "Israel Attacks Flotilla Bound For Gaza". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  13. ^ Conal Urquhart (20 September, 2007). ["Israel declares Gaza Strip hostile territory". Guardian. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  14. ^ 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)
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNNWorld was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ UN says Gaza blockade hinders reconstruction aid, AFP
  17. ^ Associated Press: Israel's use of captured video draws criticism
  18. ^ Associated Press: Israel's use of captured video draws criticism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365953342"