Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

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:

• /Archive_2#Activists or passengers? - decision was to keep "passengers" for now.

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

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)

Maybe you might want to move that section down here? — Sebastian 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

SS EXODUS

This has been discussed ad nauseum in at least 3 different sections. It has also been subject of an edit war, repeatedly added and repeatedly rolled back.

But as of right now, there is not consensus to include it in the article. Wiki:BRD suggests that it should not be readded, until after there exists consensus. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read a part of the policy " The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies". We are trying to make an encyclopaedia, I think, and we can't change History. It's a good think to know how events happened. It's a part of apprenticeship need. Well, I think some here are ok to keep WP in accordance with real facts. If you feel nauseous, It sould be a question of sensibility, I think. Please take a little back recoil. Samuel B52 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus in See Also

A few days ago, there was a section at the bottom of the article comparing the flotilla to SS Exodus. It was removed since the article was too large. Now that we have a See Also section, I believe including it as a bullet point there would not have any effect on the length of the article. As for relevance; a lot of reliable international news sources[Israel: remember 1947 and the Exodus ship - The Guardian][Exodus Revisited - The New York Times], [We've been here before ... but Israel has failed to learn lessons of history - Sydney Morning Herald], [Mavi Marmara and the Exodus - The New York Sun], as well as Israeli newspaper Haaretz[Fiasco on the high seas - Haaretz] contained reports relating SS Exodus to the flotilla. Both ships were heading towards the same region, contained civilians, were challenging a naval blockade, were stopped by force, and resulted in heavy international criticism. Now; you may personally feel that the flotilla's journey is not justified compared to that of Exodus, but you cannot deny the fact there are many similarities. Merely noting the similarity between the two events does not necessarily mean that both of them were justified or both of them were not justified. That is to be left to the reader. --386-DX (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are all editorials; WP is not an editorial. But I don't oppose mentioning the comparison in the article Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid if it's not already there.  —Rafi  15:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, should be added with well written description and consensus as comment (if consensus is achieved). --Kslotte (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in having it as a bullet point in the "See also" section on this article: after all, the two incidents have been compared by many commentators, it is not just a whim of WP editors to compare them. I'm not sure there's any encyclopedic value in comparing them at length, but if someone wants to prove me wrong then go ahead! Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, I strongly oppose a link in the See also. Fair or not, RS based or not, it is still an editorial statement and belongs in the other article.  —Rafi  15:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a comment made by multiple independent commentators; no more "editorial" than saying that the Gaza blockade is legal or illegal! Physchim62 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a historical comparison and legal opinion.  —Rafi  15:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's still just opinion. And, in the case of the blockade, much of the legal opinion is based on historical comparison! I'm not saying we should discuss the editorial pieces in this article, but a "See also" link seems more than justified to me. Physchim62 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A see also link is much more than "discussing" the editorial pieces, it's endorsing them! I still strongly disagree. I think we need others' input.  —Rafi  16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's endorsing them, but yes, it would be nice to have a few more voices here. Physchim62 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support See also link per Physchim. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Including the link to the page in the See Also section does not at all mean endorsing or opposing neither the flotilla, nor the raid, or anything else mentioned in the article. Of course there are various differences between the two events, but nobody can deny that there were at least numerous material similarities. It is not POV to note that. For instance; Haaretz article which compared the two events endorsed the Exodus but opposed the motivations of the flotilla. Some other person may very well endorse the flotilla but oppose Exodus. That's why the causes or the reasons for similarity are not mentioned in the article. The justifications of the events are for the reader to make. --386-DX (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with adding it. It's very POV to try to draw comparisons between stopping a group of activists who are trying to run a blockade to deliver aid to Hamas, and sending a bunch of Jews back to the concentration camps. Beyond that, it simply opens up a floodgate for more POV "see also" additions. The very next addition is going to be various acts of terrorism and murder perpetrated by Hamas or even 9/11, which are both also vaguely related to this story. My suggestion would be to only include things that are directly related to this story. That includes the MV Rachel Corrie and the blockade. But "Lifeline 3" should be removed, because it only has tangental relevancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Bob, plus my comment below.  —Rafi  00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

386-DX, It's POV and there are between 1 to 0 similarities and 0 notable similarities. Do you want me to get to details? --Gilisa (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I will say it clear, any such comparison is political-even if was made by some journalists, editors are not allow to do it themselvs. I don't find serious base for such comparison, even (if?) Exodus was the organisors source of inspiration. In any case, adding picture is a way too much.--Gilisa (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to rely on references in "See also". If there is similarities we should include it. --Kslotte (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not even one single significant similarity and I doubt that any at all. The burden of evidence is on the one who suggest there are similarities and I can tell that this burden is immpossible to carry. It should not be included in the "see also". We try to keep this article clear of bias. --Gilisa (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You may not see any similarities yourself. However, there have been articles and editorials published in numerous high-profile newspapers all around the world, including one in Israel, comparing the two events in detail. That fact, and the debate here, shows that there are at least some similarities. Exactly what those are is a matter of opinion, and that's why we're including a link and not a paragraph. --386-DX (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no investigation committee suggested for the Exodus, everybody know who is guilty. This is not the case here and the comparison implying that the Israeli side is to be blame. Simple as that. Leave this comparison for Opinion journalists, I can't see any slightest connection between holocaust serviovrs refugees who just came out of Auschwitz and the activists on this boat (oh yeah, one of the activists is holocaust serviovor) who call IDF soldiers to return there. This is POV, to say the least, That's why it will not be here eventually. --Gilisa (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument above at 17:12 UTC was the most reasonable so far, 386-DX, but I still argue that the connection is editorializing, no matter which direction one chooses to take it. To illustrate my thinking: I can imagine a newspaper report (as opposed to editorial) mentioning past attempts to run the blockade of Gaza, as the See also does now; I can imagine one quoting legal opinions of the blockade (as Physchim62 brought up); but I cannot imagine an objective news article mentioning the Exodus. All your sources are editorials. We can quote editorials with "This editorial says..." but we should not take cues from them on how to structure WP.  —Rafi  20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for two reasons: 1. It's WP:EDITORIAL, highly controversial and not NPOV. 2. It was cited to a WP:PRIMARY source (the editorial itself). It may be included in the reactions article on condition that a reliable SECONDARY source reported that somebody notable made this comparison in relation to the current event. Marokwitz (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: my reading of WP:SEEALSO is that we have broad scope to include or exclude what we want here, so including SS Exodus comes down to whether we think it's relevant - however tangentially - to Gaza flotilla raid. Beyond that, this is just my personal opinion: I live in the UK, and I think it can be a positive thing to show people like me that Britain's history is sometimes less than wonderful. For that reason I'm !voting: weak support (but don't care too much either way). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It might be cute to write an editorial about it but that is all. Realistically, I could see some inclusion in the article since a couple lines under the reactions section would actually cause less POV and prominence issues than linking it at the bottom with a bullet.Of course if it isn't good enough for the reactions section than it certainly isn't related enough for the see also list. Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Exodus isn't anything really closely related. But on some points it is related. We don't need to cite on references for the See also section. If we include it we need to write how it is related. So far, we have failed in explaining the relation, since it has been removed or reverted. We need to put forward a suggestion of the whole "See also" structure exactly in words. And, that way reach a consensus. --Kslotte (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by We need to put forward a suggestion of the whole "See also" structure, I would refer to WP:SEEALSO, but as pointed out above, its pretty wishie-washy, and final editorial process ends here. I would leave it out for now. --Tom (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree  : there is an evident link in the story of the two "incidents". This link, or similarity, is the same part of world, the same geography . It could be easier for readers to understand the history if " exodus " is mentioned and linked directly in introduction or in another section. Samuel B52 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many other naval incidents that happened in the area. Some more relevant. For example Karine A Affair , Operation Four Species, and Struma (ship) (in which Turkey was responsible to the deaths of 768 men, women and children). I don't think that the Exodus is helpful in understanding the current article in any way. Marokwitz (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

=> This is not about Turkey but about State of Palestine and particulary about Gaza ( in which Israël was responsible to the death of 2,700 Palestinians, men, women and children by targeted killings, aerial bombings on ONU and university buildings - ex : article ) But the two "incident" also have similarities regarding the history of one land : the Palestine. How could we ignore that ? So, links are strongly recommended for understanding the situation and keeping accordance with Wikipedia policies as an internet encyclopaedia ( WP:SEEALSO ). Not only geography is concern, but it's also regarding Palestinian people and their history, and also State of Palestine. All links could be in "See also" section and "Exodus" in introduction. I live in France and even in French-speaking Countries, journalists have made the connection between the "Freedom Flotilla" and the "Exodus" ( ex :"from exodus to freedom flotilla" article). I agree we need to discuss about the " See also section" contents. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE: The only similarity is that both made head lines, most readers with limited knowledge of History have heard of the Exodus that's why the journalists mention it -and probably to smear the Israelis with the same repulsion it triggered towards the Brits-, these activists were not desperate refugees and they were not even detained, not all blocades are similar: the british blocade was for people and the israeli one for weapons, some people are emotionally mislead by a superficial point: the use of the same word. The Exodus comparison should be in the Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid article since they are just that, reactions, Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of this has already been debated above. Please read before you write, stop raising the same points, engaging in circular discussions, and and save your personal opinions for some other medium. See WP:FORUM. --386-DX (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend to include it per WP:SEEALSO and that several sources already have made the connection. There are several parallels between the two events. Including Todd Beamer would not be a good idea, even if some people have made such a connection. // Liftarn (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove sentence from lead

The following sentence should be removed from the lead:

One activist on board said that the Israelis fired warning shots before boarding.

The alleged event "soldiers fired warning shots" is poorly sourced ("one activist said"), and the information that one activist said they did, while well sourced (to The Guardian) is not important enough to be included in the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that this was backed up by more than the sources you mentioned. But if it doesn't then I agree with you it should not be in the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There were multiple sources for this sentence, but looks like someone removed them. Correcting it now. --386-DX (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

386 is right. There are quite a few sources for this and it accurately tells the passengers' account of the events. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not that the information would be unsourced. I think that the account of a single passenger is not important enough to be included in the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From France, we read that 4 persons said that the Israelis fired before boarding : Jamal El-Shayyal , Michalis Grigoropoulos , Alex Harrison , Fiachra Ó Luain. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell have also said that they fired before boarding.[1] "Innan den första soldaten tagit mark, föll den förste försvararen av ett skott i huvudet." (Before the first soldier took ground the first defender fell with a shot to the head.) // Liftarn (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Commander of the Israeli Sheyabet 13 boarding team also says they fired warning shots (and dropped stun grenades) before boarding the Mavi Marmara. Jerusalem Post. So it appears that eyewitnesses on both sides agree that the Israelis opened fire before boarding. // Marbux (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree to remove. Samuel B52 (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree on removal but would support an edit to indicate that both activists and the commander of the Israeli boarding team of Sheyatet 13 commandos agree that the Israelis fired warning shots and dropped stun grenades before the Israelis boarded the ship. Jerusalem Post (interview with commander). The information is no longer poorly sourced. I would have no objection to an additional statement indicating that the commander's attributed statement clashes with the initial official Israeli government position that the commandos did not open fire before they were attacked by Flotilla members. Marbux (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Newshoggers site, a collection of quotations from (and links to) various flotilla eyewitness accounts.     ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Video released

The Guardian reports on a video by Iara Lee, who was on the Mavi Marmara, being released.[2] Should the video be included as an external link? It is on Vimeo:[3]. Fences&Windows 19:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a full one hour version of that video. I posted it above in the paintball section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Here too, shorter version I think: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Full 1h version is at [5] I think. Anybody watch it all, and find anything interesting? I also notice that the text below the video claims there are activists unaccounted for, but doesn't mention any names. I've seen this claimed in many places, but do we have anything definitive? Ketil (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much happening until 21 minutes, morning prayer commences and goes on to about 32. Seems to contradict sources claiming people were attacked while at prayer, at least. Ketil (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At 36:32, in what seems to be the first action by IDF, they are firing painball guns at the activists (PB magazines in profile) Ketil (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At 39 minutes we see some red liquid on a ladder - an activist (Espen Goffeng) says he think's they're using some paintball like stuff, he doesn't think it's blood. Ketil (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The liquid looks too red to be blood, although some of the activists seem to assume that it's blood. Physchim62 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At about 40 minutes, he repeats it, says they're not using live rounds, and that they have landed ten people from a helicopter. I think he says "they've taken two of them", but it's hard to make out. At 41 minutes, we see a (second?) abseiling from helicopter. Ketil (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's confirmation that the flotilla had changed course before the raid (about 12min): we knew that already (they were heading due west at the time of the boarding), but it's the first secondary source I've seen for that. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What confirms this? Ketil (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At 10:57, Lee is filming the Al-Jazeera broadcast, where Jamal Elshayyal reports that the organizers have decided to reroute the vessel to avoid confrontation with the Israeli forces, especially a confrontation by night. A couple of days ago, someone else had come to the same conclusion by studying the AIS logs that are tracked by marinetraffic.com, that's in the talk page archives somewhere. Finally, you can see from where the Sun is coming up later on in the video that the ship is travelling roughly west. Physchim62 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The marinetraffic link isn't working for me any more, but I think the same track is at [6]. This time-stamps the turn at 01:40 UTC. At 01:32 MM does 5kts south, 1:37 it's 11kts south, 1:43 it is doing 11kts southwest. Since the broadcast is obviously before the attack, either he's talking about something else, or the attack must have been a lot later than previously thought. Ketil (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I doubt it's Lee, since there's a long scene of morning prayers. IANAM, but AFAK, women are not allowed among men during prayer (or vice versa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting video indeed. Here are some highlights (this is of course my analysis which won't go in the article without an RS saying the same thing, but I think it's useful for us as editors to get as clear a picture as possible of what happened)

• There are several cuts in the video, but it's continuous from 38:23-47:32, which includes the first part of the raid with the soldiers coming down from the helicopter.
• At 39:00 there's what might be a single live shot. There's a guy speaking in Turkish into a walkie-talkie, if anyone could translate what he's saying that would be great.
• You can hear the helicopters starting to arrive over the ship around 39:30. There's a laser pointer on the deck a few seconds later.
• The helicopters are above the ship at 40:00.
• At 41:37 you can see soldiers coming down from the helicopter.
• At 42:00 you can see three passengers firing slingshots at the helicopter/soldiers.
• At 42:48 you can hear what might be the first live shot if the earlier one wasn't. Another single shot at 43:15.
• At 43:27 they bring down a wounded passenger. I couldn't tell where he's wounded.
• Rapid fire at 43:35, sounds like someone emptying a pistol clip, then there's what I think is automatic fire.
• At 45:25 you can see them bringing down a soldier (not sure if he's conscious or not, he's not struggling).
• At 45:44 an American guy says that they have "two soldiers down there bleeding an wounded". We saw this guy coming up the stairs at 44:00. He has in his possession some papers with Hebrew writing he says were on the soldiers.
• At 46:10 you can see a passenger with a wound to the leg. Another one with wounds to both legs at 46:50.
• At around 50:00 (after the cut) there's a several minute sequence where you can see passengers armed with knives, chains, metal rods and clubs waiting next to a door.
• At around 53:00 there's a pretty graphic sequence of wounded passengers.
• At 61:00 (after daybreak) you can hear who I believe is MK Zoubi talking in English over the PA. No weapons fire is heard.
  

If someone could translate what the guy is saying in Turkish at 39:00, and the other guy in Norwegian at 39:10, that would be much appreciated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Woah!. Can everyone stop making their own analyses of the video? Use what reliable secondary sources say about its contents, not your own interpretations or potential cherry-picking of snippets. Fences&Windows 22:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fences. Some editors are having a field day with original research and interpretations of the videos etc., the great majority of which, of course, are IDF released, appropriated, edited and/or censored. This is not how primary sources are treated. RomaC (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This video is particularly interesting, as it comes from the activists and is thus not censored or cherry-picked by the IDF. It also appears to be largely unedited and chronological. I don't see why you consider this cherry-picking - well, unless it's because you want to ignore the facts, and just use WP as a vehicle for your own POV, that is. Ketil (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe "cherry picking" referred to the dissection of the video by various editors. Fences' point was that we should be looking at what reliable, secondary sources say about the video, not providing our own analysis of a primary source. TFOWR 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

663 or 682 passengers?

The number of passengers on the flotilla is listed as 663 and 682 in different parts of the article. Most news reports and IDF statements say there were 682. Shall we go ahead and replace all 663's with 682's? --386-DX (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that there had been a brief comment on this (above, or in the talk page archives), maybe some speculation that the "missing" 19 were the ships' crew. Can't be certain however. I'd suggest holding off for an hour or so in case someone with a better memory than me has any ideas. (I'm also mindful that if 682 refers to passengers+crew we're going to restart the whole passengers/activists/civilians debate... which would fill me with despair ;-)

TFOWR 12:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No consensus, as I remember, and differing numbers with more detainees than flotilla participants. Ketil (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images

We have two images from Associated Press – the one of the funerals and the one of the UN Security Council – which don't seem to add anything which couldn't be placed in text. Also, they are images from a commercial news organization, so presumably have a resale value which we are diminishing by our use. Although there's no outright ban on using fair use images from news agencies, we are usually doubly careful when we take commercial images as fair use. I think these two images should be removed (if possible, replaced by free alternatives). Comments? Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also the image of the flotilla passenger's hands which is from AP. Since I'm not sure what is the policy in these cases, I think that this needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Marokwitz (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The UN SC photo seems purely decorative. I'm OK with the funeral picture. Haven't looked ay the "hands" photo yet (and acknowledging that I am - just a wee bit - involved ;-) ) TFOWR 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the following images are problematic, as they come from press agencies and may breach our fair use policy: File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. Press agency pictures are particularly problematic if the use infringes on their commercial rights or the image is replaceable. Generally we can only use such pictures if the picture itself is the subject of analysis. Fences&Windows 12:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

^ uninvolved admin. Marokwitz, don't say we don't listen to your requests ;-) TFOWR 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever he said, I find that a bit extreme though, especially regarding the photos from Hürriyet, these are widely seen as the Turkish response to the photos published by the IDF and show situations that were deemed too embarrassing the Israelis and censored by them. Since the Hürriyet photos directly document the story which is being discussed and there are no free alternatives , I think that would qualify as fair use. Marokwitz (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are the IHH (or someone similar) republishing the photos? That would possibly^* side-step the concern Fences and windows has over press agencies and their lawyers... ^* What I know about fair use and copyright can be written on the back of a stamp...TFOWR 13:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

These photos cannot be used (even if republished by another group), barring one exception. The disallowance of press agency photos is given by WP:NFC#UUI #6 due to the perceived commercial value aspect; what other people due to republish that photo (with or without permission) doesn't change that photo's impact on us. The exception is if the image itself (not the actions in the image, in this case, the flotilla raid shots) has actual critical commentary. An example of this rare exception is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. While the flotilla attack has had some significant impact, I am pretty sure no single image yet has any similar reputation as the above case. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So, in that case shall I remove them? (the pictures as listed by Fences and windows) Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We just had a similar discussion at Talk: Joran van der Sloot with similar results. You just can't go out and grab other's people's property like that. I would get in touch with the organization which organized the boats, they may be very willing to release photos.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the pics as listed by Fences and windows, File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. If you want to replace any of them please discuss at the Wikipedia:Non-free content review and get consensus there . Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur. All are invalid fair use claims. You have the word of two uninvolved admins. Please people read WP:NFCC, especially Criterion 8. The fact that we lack sufficient free use images does not give us license to go out and grab others under the claim of "fair use". It may be a use, but it isn't fair to the copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The three IDF images would also seem to fail on NFCC 8. Physchim62 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true, these image have been released by IDF Spokesperson's Unit, with fair use explicitly allowed. Marokwitz (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How can fair use be explicitly allowed? I can see free use being allowed, happens every day. But fair use implies the non-consent of the copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they can, the Terms of Use of the material released includes the following words: "User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. " Marokwitz (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use always allowed under law, question is how "set out under law".--Brendumb (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the IDF has released these images under a free licence (allowing modification, for example), so their use on WP comes under WP:NFCC. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It is non free content under fair use. Marokwitz (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just re-removed File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg at least for failing WP:NFC#UUI #6. You can also count me as uninvolved, although I'm not an admin. So far at least there hasn't been any conversation as to reinstating these images at WP:NFCR#Gaza flotilla raid images. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

All kinds of historical naval events are being added to this section now, and it is starting to look a bit confusing. As an WP:Inclusionist, I'm in favour of including naval seisures involving Israel, or seisures of passenger or aid ships in general. I don't mind the presence of Exodus, Karine A, and Francop; since they were all seizures involving Israel, and can help the reader understand the motivations and aftermath of this event. However, I do not see any relevance regarding stuff like the Yugoslavian blockade of NATO, The Struma, or the sinking of RMS Lusitania. --386-DX (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say the Exodus "involve Israel", while The Struma doesn't? Both are Jewish immigrant ships escaping the Nazis that were seized while en route to the british mandate of Palestine, with loss of life. Both predate the establishment of Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Struma was not seized or raided, but I see your point. Fair enough. --386-DX (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with The Struma, but note my previous comments re: SS Exodus (I'm in favour, as it highlights "The Rest of the World's Involvement" (in these cases, Britain)).

I mentioned before that peripherally related topics (topics that might feature in a "perfect, 100% complete, no cross referencing necessary" article) were OK: my only real concerns would be (a) number of see alsos (it seems fine right now), and (b) WP:NPOV. I'd like to see a balance of POVs - including the "uninvolved" point-of-view (topics like The Struma and SS Exodus, which show the outside world's involvement in the wider issue). TFOWR 16:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a HUGE discussion above in regards to the Exodus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#SS_Exodus_in_See_Also

And there certainly was not consensus that it should be included. It's already been deleted more than once. I propose removing it, until we can get consensus about _exactly_ what should be included in "see also" to maintain a neutral point of view. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the NATO blockade of Yugoslavia (Operation Sharp Guard) as a recent example of a naval blockade (and in Mediterranean waters as well) that operated rather differently from the Israeli blockade of Gaza. I'm certainly not reverting to put it back in, but I think it is one example of an article which is related but which doesn't need to be discussed in prose in this article, i.e. a candidate for the "See also" section. The first two links in the current "See also" section simply shouldn't be there because they are already mentioned in the article text. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Operation Sharp Guard is an interesting example. In that case, deadly force (disabling fire) was authorized to halt ships that refused to stop. In the present case, the Israeli's tried boarding a ship disobeying orders rather than firing upon it. It illustrates Israel's point that it tried using the minimum force necessary to enforce its blockage. Up until I read Operation Sharp Guard, I wasn't sure how much force could be used to enforce a blockade. The way the subject is addressed in this article, one would assume that Israel was just bloody-minded and didn't care about casualties. By way of comparison, I see now this isn't true. As a result, I support including a link to Operation Sharp Guard in the See also section. Rklawton (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"removed unrelated, obviously non neutral POV addition to the "see also" section" Ho hum. Physchim62 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A modification appears without consensus. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367926720&oldid=367926610 ). Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The RS make links. So, please put again the link in see also section about : ( * SS Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish emigrants to Mandate Palestine, seized by the Royal Navy with four deaths among the passengers.).I think it's worth discussing this on the talk page and getting consensus first. Samuel B52 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it (as I'd quite like the SS Exodus and The Struma to be "see alsos") but the consensus has to be for their inclusion, not their removal. I'm unconvinced that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are that relevant here: WP:SEEALSO is pretty broad, and boils down to "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". Agree that discussion should continue, we seem well short of consensus either way at this point. TFOWR 09:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to repeat it also but the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH give reasons to include this in article. WP:SEEALSO tell us if we could put this reference in a special section. The consensus has NOT to be for their inclusion, but for the place where we want to put it. I'm convinced that the removal without consensus to delete it, do not respect policies. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment there doesn't appear to be a consensus for their inclusion in the "See also" section. As you say, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply to the main article, much less so to "see also", where editorial judgement applies. You and I may disagree with the current editorial judgement, but I'm not aware of any policy that says we should add without consensus, or object to a removal in the absence of consensus. (1RR notwithstanding, obviously). And easy on the bold, there! Bolding does not make an argument any more persuasive, any more than appending "- Fact!" to the end of an argument would. TFOWR 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the items on "See Also" are not relevant. Keep in mind - there are "Categories" in Wikipedia, for navigation to similar articles. Not all items, that share a category with this article, should be added to the "See Also" section. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

wiki policies apply first and secondly specific consensus apply. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH tell us what inclusion we can make. If you want to change this policies, we have to find a consensus with all the wikipedia community for this rules before. But at this time wiki have policies which tell to include because RS make the link and write comparison between the two incident. You take POV when you deny this policies. The consensus could be for the removal , not for the add. If you don't agree, we must change change the wiki policies first.( the bold is to be more clear and mark the explanation with argument. It's not to be more persuasive. It's for the comfort when we read and for less fatigue. If your really don't like bold and the others don't like, I can stop. Just ask me.) Samuel B52 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you use italics instead? It's easier to read. Bolding is a bit like SHOUTING. I've bolded below for emphasis only because it's within a quotation.

I'm basing my views on the "See also" section on WP:SEEALSO, in particular:

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one.

However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.

There is — so far as I can see — no requirement for sourcing; the only requirement is editorial judgement (we discuss and arrive at a consensus) and common sense.

TFOWR 11:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, my goal here — as I've stated elsewhere — is to include all POVs, including the "we don't think we're involved POV" exhibited by, say, Britain. TFOWR 11:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(I'm sorry, I don't know how to write in italic. I'm a French user. I don't have the same interface as usual.) So could you please explain to me why wiki community policies exist ? The Commons sense you are talking about is clearly not the same for every one and regarding 'see also " section. If we don't put in this section, we could put directly in introduction. In case of discordance, the policies are here to take decisions. Policies tell us that we can include in this article. There is a hierarchy in rules before consensus. To make the removal in accordance with the community, you should replace it in another place with a consensus Samuel B52 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries: I use '' before and after the text to be italicised. Sorry, I don't know how to do it with the interface.

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply to the content of the article much more than to the "See also" section, because the "See also" section consists of purely internal links. Without any sourcing requirements to support/oppose a "See also" link, all that's left is our judgement. So... per WP:SEEALSO we should consider whether a link covers a topic that would be in "a hypothetical perfect article": if we were to write an article without any links to other articles, one that covered absolutely everything the reader needed to know in order to understand the topic, what would we include? It's not a case of ignoring policy, it's a case of these policies not really applying to "See also" sections. The important thing for me is to cover all the peripherally related topics, reflecting every point of view.

On en.wiki, content may be added without consensus, however it may then be removed. Content should remain where there is consensus to keep it. If there is not consensus to keep it then it may be removed. TFOWR 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of linking directly to these events, would it be a better solution to link to an index page (or category) of, say, naval blockades or similar? Ketil (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As you write we may add without consensus ( in accordance with policies), and consensus should remain to delete it if the add respect the policies. We are in this case. We are OK with policies but some of us don't want to see it. So, do we ask for arbitrage ? Samuel B52 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd like to see a consensus develop for what does and does not get included. Ideally I'd like to see that happen here, on this talk page, but it may be that we can't decide between ourselves, and it becomes useful to get an outside viewpoint. I'm still hopeful that we can achieve consensus here, however. TFOWR 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but in waiting that consensus, we should put the sentence again . IT is in accordance with wiki policies. The removal need a consensus. Samuel B52 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that right? Or after it's been removed, should it stay removed until there is consensus that it belongs in the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Including SS Exodus seem obvious since several independent RS have made such a connection and the obvious similarities (boat, blockade, civilians getting killed, public outcry). Some have also analysed the historical significance and Bloody Sunday (1972) and the Sharpeville shootings have also been used in comparisons. // Liftarn (talk)

I did some research and as I understand the process, it's Wiki:BRD. It was boldly added. It's been reverted (more than once). And it seems that it should remain reverted, until after it's been discussed and we have consensus that it should be included in the article. That is the wikipedia process, is it not? Unless someone can explain to me why and how Wiki:BRD is not the process, I'm going to delete the line soon. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay only. That said, it's a damn good essay, one I wish everyone would follow, and it's particularly applicable here, given the 1RR sanctions.

Only real caution I'd advise is: if you've already reverted once in the past 24 hours: let someone else remove it.

TFOWR 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I've removed it. I figure (a) I'm got no reverts today, (b) I support its inclusion, so no one can accuse me of anything bad, and (c) you all now owe me a favour ;-)

There's clearly no consensus for its inclusion (I hope that'll change, but until then...)

Anything else I'd like to keep and you all would like to see gone? ;-)

TFOWR 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this new removal. Please put this link again. Samuel B52 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never reverted anything, but you beat me to it.

As for trying to get consensus. Are either sides here willing to make any sort of compromises? Is compromise even possible here; or is this just black and white? I'm still new here. But since this is considered by some to be very POV, could it be balanced by other "see also" from the opposite POV to create agreement and balance? Would that make sense? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, gotta be fast round here ;-)

I'm kind of a shade-of-grey here. My POV (everyone's got one!) is: I live in Britain, and felt that this particular "see also" (SS Exodus) highlighted Britain's involvement in the creation of Israel. Here in Britain we tend to regard Israel/Palestine as "somebody else's problem", a problem far away, that doesn't concern us.

I can't speak for any editors with pro-Israel or pro-Palestine views. Indeed, I can't even say that this is a POV issue - it's entirely possible that opposition to including the Exodus as a "see also" is based on better understanding of WP:SEEALSO than mine.

You should also note that I'm pretty liberal when it comes to "see alsos". There's a comedy thread down below where I argue for a "see also" secure in the knowledge that mine is a lone voice...!

TFOWR 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to have no position regarding pro-israel or pro-palestine. But the fact is that as encyclopaedia, WP couldn't' hide some history links. This is why, I think it is important, in any point of view, to keep the link. It's for a understanding of history of that country.( from the beginning to now ). So I will put it again ;-) Samuel B52 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, I don't see "see also" links as anything worth arguing over. The "see also" sections of most articles are pretty eclectic, it doesn't imply any sort of editorial acceptance, simply that someone thought that a given link might be intersting to someone else who read the article. Physchim62 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that we are not in a general encyclopaedia but on WP which provided link possibilities. And , in general, I don't see the air, but I'm very sure that I respire it. ;-) We are several editors for this add. Samuel B52 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the Exodus is relevant, but I have no opposition to its inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I'm using my first ever revert to undo Physchim62's readdition of what TFOWR just deleted.

Here's why I think it's POV. There are absolutely _no_ direct connections between the two events. And without any direct connection, it sure seems to make an implicit association Israel's actions and the sending of hundreds of Jewish holocaust survivors back to Germany.

Come on people... How do we get consensus on this? Do we need arbitration? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

claimed in a working paper

Evan Kohlmann in a working paper from the Danish Institute for International Studies[57] claimed that the IHH has ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and al-Qaeda), and that the IHH aids terrorism. <-- This whole sentence looks far-fetched and POV; especially considering that the organisation has a consultative status in UNESC and no government (perhaps except Israel) is designating IHH as a terrorist organisation. Could somebody please remove this sentence? --386-DX (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a point of view, it gives Evan Kohlmann's point of view. There are no alternatives to citing the perspective of various people and organizations in this aritcle. Even if they disagree with the UN.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So why is an individual called Evan Kohlmann's claim in one of his working papers worthy to be menioned in that section? What makes his word an RS? There are far more people who claim that IDF is a terrorist organisation - should we mention all of them as well? There are people who would claim NATO, McDonalds, Red Cross, or Amnesty International are terrorist organisations. Mentioning a claim merely because someone has made it is not reasonable. --386-DX (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall the same statement about IHH was made by a French judge who was in charge of investigating terrorism. Will have to look up the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence should be removed. --Kslotte (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence should be removed. French Institute for International Studies ( http://www.ifri.org/ ) said that we don't have any evidence of this allegation. ( source here : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/proche-orient/flottille-nouvelle-deterioration-des-relations-entre-israel-et-la-turquie_896105.html ) Samuel B52 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

About your source with the French ex-Judge, it's not the first time he say something wrong ( see: " false for second time "http://www.humanite.fr/2010-01-08_International_Rwanda-La-these-du-juge-Bruguiere-invalidee-une-seconde ) and ( http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/dominique-conil/231109/jean-louis-bruguiere-meme-les-paranoiaques-ont-des-ennemis ). This ex judge, M.Bruguiere don't have credibility now. We know him as a propagandist now. Samuel B52 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple RS carried the AP interview with this ex-judge. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruguière seems to be the main source for Kohlmann anyway. Perhaps we should change the sentence to say that "former French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière claims that..." (we could still cite the Kohlmann report as a secondary source, as it contains references that the AP piece doesn't). Physchim62 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here in France, multiple source wrote that this allegation is not verified. This ex judge didn't give any evidence. We don't have this organisation on our list of terrorist. And Germany, where IHH is also, made a control to surch potential links with terrorist organisation. They didn't find anything and IHH is not on terrorist list. So, is wikipedia a media for propaganda from M.Jean Louis Bruguiere a ex judge with a lot of controversy ? If yes, I think the past and the controversy of the man sould appear after his name, and the translation of a searcher in international relation who said that this allegation is not verified. Samuel B52 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing it per WP:UNDUE, and the sentence after it ("Activists who were members of the IHH were said to be distinguishable from other activists because they demonstrated "a willingness to fight.") because it is a single editorial comment not backed up with any other allegations. It might be worth mentioning that the IHH is not allowed to operate in Israel (undisputed fact). Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Several RS such as Salon, ABC and CBS carried the interview with Bruguière, that makes it notable. I think that "According to France's former top anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguière..., according to X he was wrong because..." should go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Bruguière is no more a judge. But if you insist, I ask to put this just after his name : "This ex-judge is controversy and have made several mistakes in the past. ( ref : see links I give just before (or a could make a translation). )" _ and just after the sentence speaking about Bruguière allegations, we put " N.Bolat , a researcher at I.F.R.I. (the French Studies for Internationals Relations) see: (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/actions-france_830/etudes-recherches_3119/pensee-francaise_3129/ifri_7788.html) said in a French newspaper called " lexpress " that this allegation must be verified and " have to be proved ". and after we put " The French and Germany terrorist list do not include this association as a terrorist organisation or linked as " as a note . Samuel B52 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If Brugière's opinion were that important, the IHH would be banned in France, but it isn't. It isn't banned in the U.S. either. As far as I'm aware, the only country to ban its operations is Israel. The actions of governments speak loader than the opinions of individuals, I feel. Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on why IHH isn't banned is irrelevant. Brugière is an expert and thus an WP:RS on this issue. The interview was carried by several RS, which makes it notable. What he said should be attributed to him, and if there are people who disagree with him that should be mentioned, but unless you have a policy based argument to exclude it, it should go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps Brugière was an expert. Now he doesn't work for justice any more, and doesn't have all the possibilities given by a job of judge he had before. He is just a old propagandist, he is not a expert.( And if we wait tree days, perhaps this guy could reveal to the world that Ben Laden and his wife was on a boat and smoked marijuana... ) If we relay his propaganda, we make his biography resume just after his name and we balance his allegation as I asked before with a real expert who work for the French government + note that both government French and German don't include this organisation as terrorist Samuel B52 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The RS describe him as "France's former top anti-terrorism judge" and that's how we'll describe him. We should certainly add other opinions if they are reported by RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The RS describe him more as a politician than a investigator. ( http://www.voltairenet.org/article13591.html ) Could you give your source and the exact sentence you would like to add ? Samuel B52 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted it above, but here it is again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this only source you have ? this allegation is already made in IHH page. We don't need redundancy. there is already a link to this organisation at the top of the articleSamuel B52 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the recent addition as this is covered in the IHH article which is linked and this article is already to big. Mo ainm~Talk 10:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored it for balance as well as supporting statements made later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't restore any balance in doing that but you make the IHH story. You shouldn't make the story of IHH here. This is not a IHH article but about a raid army article. This allegation already exist in wikipedia at the IHH special page. Please remove this add Samuel B52 (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also editor doesn't seem to understand Bold Revert Discuss or just ignored it and reverted in any way. Mo ainm~Talk 11:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand WP:BRD is not policy or even a guideline. It's an essay. What do you understand about it? I hope you didn't think you can use it as a tool to prevent people reverting your revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to know you just ignored a consensus building mechanism, and just reverted a controversial addition might not be policy but it is a good starting point at preventing edit wars. Mo ainm~Talk 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We were having a nice detailed discussion here before you reverted. For some reason you decided not to join the discussion and only revert. I guess you consider that a consensus building mechanism. A good starting point for preventing edits wars is discussing before reverting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't anything other than an essay (a good one, in my view), but it's very, very relevant here - 1RR sanctions apply to this article. Once you've reverted, discuss - or risk being blocked. Not by me, I hasten to add - I won't block anyone editing this article, since I'm "involved". TFOWR 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources describing Brugière as an expert, so this is both verifiable and notable. According to WP:NPOV, if there is a notable viewpoint that links IHH to terrorism, it is obviosuly relevet to this article's section describing the organization. 80.230.6.117 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that we don't have read a notable source relaying this allegation with Bruguiere's name in France. He seems to be only a "expert" in other country but not in his own country. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And please note that this allegation is not verifiable. A reader can't verify this allegation. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems are that the comment is from an uninvolved person from an uninvolved country and concerns his personal impressions from more then ten years ago, and that this article is about commandos boarding flotilla, not just one subsection of the flotilla. But, these problems are being overlooked in the push for some IHH-besmirching, which seems mostly some Wikipedia editors' attempt to discredit the IHH, as Israel is now attempting through a variety of media/PR vehicles. Wikipedia policies of undue weight for example should prevail here, so long as people have the time to invest to counter advocacy editing. RomaC (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to think of it as "critical editing" rather than "counter advocacy editing" ;) Physchim62 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ITLOS photo

Why do we have a photo of the International Tribunal for Law of The Sea in the article? I don't think it's relevant enough to the event. --386-DX (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really add a lot does it...not really connected, we lost five or six pictures earlier and it was perhaps to replace the void so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that photo. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ben Yishay's account

"at first, the soldiers attempted to stop the violence with stun grenades; however, after a soldier was reported injured, the troops then asked for permission to use their firearms, which they received.[128]

That's not what the article says, it says that soldiers first used paintballs, then after the violence continued they used stun grenades, and then when that didn't work, and a soldier was thrown down to a lower deck 30 feet below - not "injured", only then the soldiers resorted to live ammunition. For the soldiers out there who saw this - that solider might as well be dead, who knew if he survived? so I'll hardly called that simply "injured" - a poor choice of words.

possible change: at first, the soldiers attempted to stop the violence using paintball guns and stun grenades, however, after a soldier was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet below, sustaining a serious head injury, the troops asked permission to use live ammunition, a request approved by the commander.

Of course there is room to add in, but the current language is dubious.

Better to leave that account out altogether. Ben Yishay wasn't on the Mavi Marmara, he only knows what he was told by the IDF. We now have other accounts from the IDF, several of which contradict Ben Yishay's account. His account isn't journalism, it's pure propaganda, and out-of-date propaganda at that. Physchim62 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok,thank you, Physchim.

But, I would still like a comment from one of the non-biased users

I agree - better to get accounts from the witnesses and not second hand. Rklawton (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about some of the claims in his news story, and many of them turned out to be in contradiction with the later findings and statements from both sides. Please search the archives before opening a new discussion. --386-DX (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Yishay was a wintess, please read the article before commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the article suggests he was an eyewitness. And we have this account from one of the commandos, which even the Jerusalem Post admits is "in contrast to earlier reports" (but much closer to activists' statements). Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Yishay was on one of the IDF boats, not the Marmara. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ben Yishay is definitely biased, embedded kind of reporter. We clearly need to mention this. He witnessed Sabra and Shatila and had an interesting insight on Ariel Sharon's role, see Waltz with Bashir for instance. So he has solid background as a professional "war journalist" and his report about what happened is valuable for this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he is an "embedded" journalist wouldn't bother me if he actually had something to say. But his account is effectively a work of fiction: it is even written in a way that suggests he actually saw things which he couldn't have seen. We have other IDF accounts of the Israeli side of the story, we should use those instead. Physchim62 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to BBC he was an was an eyewitness AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the BBC has just read his piece and assumed he was an eyewitness because of the style it's written in. They've had to put an awful lot of updates in there since they wrote it on 2 June. He might be a reasonable eyewitness for the expectations of the IDF commanders, for example, but there are better sources for what actually went on on board (from the IDF spin). Physchim62 (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with that paragraph now it's been reworded. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

comment It doesn't seem clear what sort of "witness" Ben Yishay was. He may have been listening in on the radio communication between soldiers and the IDF ship in real time, while watching events unfold with a nightvision scope. Or he might have just been reporting on things 2nd hand. And from what we have there, we cannot make a determination. But I understand it, it's wikipedia policy to use the RS and call him a "witness" until it's determined otherwise. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

True, It's not the users to judge whether he was a witness, if a RS says he was.It truly doesn't matter what someone thinks the BBC thinks, please refrain from posting such unnecessary comments.

Except that RS does not at all say anywhere that he was a first hand witness. If you read his report, you'll see that he's citing many details that would be impossible for him to witness unless he was on the ship as the raid happened (such as what the passenger said, etc). We may very well include his story, but we cannot cite him as a first hand witness. As I said, this was already discussed for pages. Please search the archives before raising a point. --386-DX (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

and the wording on the article hasn't changed a bit. it's still "injured"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Sheyabet commander

I've added a sentence to the first paragraph in the Boarding Mavi Marmara section, referenced to a Jerusalem Post interview with the commander of the Israeli commando boarding team, attributing to him a statement that the commandos fired warning shots and dropped stun grenades before roping down to the vessel. The statement may be the most probative evidence yet on the issue of which side attacked first. As such, it might deserve mention in other parts of the article. Marbux (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sheyabet"? Don't you mean "Shayetet"? ShalomOlam (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, you are of course correct. Thank you for spotting one of the cobwebs hanging from this aged brain. I'll leave the error in the heading on the talk page, else your comment would seem out of place. Marbux (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla Name

As naming conventions, name of a creation made by a group, artist, etc ... are named by originals titles, names given by the group. Why the flotilla is not named " Freedom Flotilla " as creators want ? The FreeGaza movement still called this creation "Freedom Flotilla" see photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/4599521000/ and newspaper : http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,698916,00.html. So, why we ignore it ? Why we don't call this event by his name ? Could anyone make corrections and rename "flotilla" by " Freedom Flotilla " ? Samuel B52 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The first reference does say "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" believe that is what policy requires. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AGREE.Policies regarding naming convention requires that. 07:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME recommends we use common names for article titles, not necessarily "official" names. In this case the article was named (and quickly renamed, following a discussion and consensus) shortly after the article was created. There's nothing to prevent that discussion being reopened... (Based on past experience, I'd probably oppose a name change per "too soon since the last discussion", but that argument is maybe wearing thin now...!) TFOWR 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

About private name, there is a special policy as an exception that should be applied before the others, in this special case. But if we don't respect this policy, we could also change all the name of artist groups, events, your own name, etc ... Medias don't have the primary right to name the reality. "Progenitors" are the first in place to do that Samuel B52 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the right to decide on names, not the media. But our decisions are based on commonality, not official or "first" status. The US founding fathers decided to name their country "the United States of America"; we decided to name our article United States - because that's the most common term used. In this case when we last discussed this (a week or so ago) the consensus was that "Gaza Freedom raid" was the best name to use. That consensus may change, but I would imagine that any new consensus would take WP:COMMONNAME into account, and consider the terms used in general, not the specific term used by the IHH or the IDF. TFOWR 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to leave the article name as is, and add a new page, named "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" that will redirect to this article. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you rename "the United States of America" , it's because you have jurisdiction to do that. If you follow your example, please take time to understand what was the processes to do so. It's not media who rename this land but legislator's in a democracy, which is not the case with media. We don't make elections for journalist cards attributions  ;-). I disagree to change the Flotilla name without accordance of "primogenitors" of this event, they are the only one who can rename it, it's not a problem of where is the name in wikipedia, but this is about How do we name an event. Please see naming policies, and specials case. We are not in Common situation but in a private case Samuel B52 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with ShalomOlam here: redirects our our friends. The title is descriptive and is in agreement with the majority of neutral sources reporting on the event. The term "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" is mentioned several times in the article, as it should be, but the majority of the content concerns the attack by the IDF, not other aspects. Also, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla was a flotilla, and so we are perfectly justified in referring to it as "the flotilla" where there is no risk of confusion. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if we rename United States it's because we can rename the article based on our policies. The legislators chose to call it "the United States of America": we chose to call our article "United States". We do not have to use the "official name", we do not have to use the "primogenitors' preferred name". TFOWR 10:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, understand that "the United States of America" is not a private area. Samuel B52 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The raid is not a private area either. We're not talking about any sort of droit d'auteur here: if we were, we would have to call it "Operation Sea Breeze", as the IDF was the author of the incidents which are most discussed in the article! Physchim62 (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about the sea or a raid but about a personal, private, civilian flotilla. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we are talking about a raid on a neutral, civilian ship in international waters which left nine people dead. That is not a private matter in the slightest. Physchim62 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the commons sense and not the media who name private thing. This Freedom Flotilla is a private event who was clearly sign by his "progenitors". Please look at the photo link above : http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,698916,00.html . When we speak about this event, we should employ his name as we employ the name of a artist or group creation. This is a special policy regarding naming policies. We don't call "Rolling stones " but " The Rolling Stone " because the group called his group like this. It's the same thing for " SS Exodus", we take name of creator event and not British name of the boat. It's the same thing for this Freedom Flotilla. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the raid, not just the flotilla. Even if it were just about the flotilla, we would still use our policies to determine the article's title. The Rolling Stones article is called that because "The Rolling Stones" is the most commonly used name of the band. United States is used because that's the most common name for "The United States of America". The usual approach here, and the one that's been suggested above, is that we create redirects for other names, so "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" (for example) would redirect to this article. TFOWR 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your argument is not valuable. The Rolling Stones article is called like that because 4 guys in garage decide them-self to be named as "The Rolling Stones" . They didn't ask to the people common sense or to press magazines. When we talking about a private thing, policies tell us to call him by his personal name, in any case. This is a encyclopaedia not a "people magazine". It's important for notability to respect policies. If we meet us one day, would you appreciate if I call you by a another name ? How could you be sure that I call you ? This is common sense to call things by they name, especially when they are private. This is not only common sense but good sense Samuel B52 (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me put it like this. I respect your view, however it is not supported by policy or by consensus here. TFOWR 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a special rule in French wiki for that. How will we make for the next flotilla ? Which name will we write ? As Rocky pictures ? Flotilla 1, Flotilla 2, Flotilla 3 ? This is a good sense, I think, to name thing by their own name. ( If the good sense disappear, may be we could write a special policy for this kind of privates events or creations in " wiki naming policy " ? We could win time for the next same case. This take 3 lines ) Samuel B52 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is here, too. TFOWR 13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

With all links given to me in this discussion, I have found what I wanted. So Thks to everybody. The special policy for this special case was not so understable as in WP French policies, I think. ( For those who are interested to see the difference, you sould look at : ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Conventions_sur_les_titres#Cas_particuliers ) with a translator . In point 2, it's explained that " In the case of associations or groups, we use the full name used to sign or present their work: The Rolling Stones and not the Rolling Stones." And I found equivalence in WP English policy at "reliable source" in naming policy who tell us " The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability." So I understand that the reliable source is, in first, the creator. So, what my request is not : I don't want to rename IDF action and I don't want to "break" precedent consensus about IDF name . what my request is : I just want to rename "Flotilla" by "Freedom Flotilla" like signed by the "Freegaza" association, in each case when name 'flotilla" appear. Like that, we don't break precedent consensus, we respect the WP policies, we respect FreeGaza the creator of the flotilla, we respect the IDF operation name and we keep WP notability. Thks for your attention Samuel B52 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

legality discussion

I think the referenced sources are not very accurately paraphrased in the article text. For instance, the referenced article by Amy Teibel does not cite D'Amato. Secondly, the legal analysis is very weak, replete with imprecision. Instead, the relevant legal issues need to be identified and jurists' views on said issues should be individually presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya12345 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. Marokwitz (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note " After internationals pressures due to civilian activism and the Freedom Flotilla, The 08 June 2010, Mr Benny Begin, israelian minister, said that a special commission in Israel will make investigations to know if the blockade of Gaza is in accordance with international laws : "The committee that will be formed will examine two questions: Is the naval blockade in line with international law, and is the raid we conducted against the flotilla also in line with international law?" This show clearly that actually Israeli government don't know if they respect the law. ( source = http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1061815/1/.html ). Samuel B52 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, virtually every time I see a sentence starting with "This show clearly", what follows is usually not such a clear conclusion :) Your conclusion from the above paragraph should have been - they created a committee because of international pressure. Marokwitz (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thks for your opinion. I agree about that sentence. May be could you have a look at U.N resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) et 1850 (2008), and number 1860 (2009) of U.N security council to make another remark about legality ? ( see : http://www.un.org/french/docs/cs/ ) Samuel B52 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. Per WP rules, we need to base our article only reliable secondary sources. I'm not a lawyer so my opinion about legality is worthless. Marokwitz (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The 08 June 2010,several RS including primary and secondary sources say: Mr Benny Begin, an israly minister said : "The committee that will be formed will examine two questions: Is the naval blockade in line with international law, and is the raid we conducted against the flotilla also in line with international law?" see : http://actu.orange.fr/a-la-une/flottille-israel-espere-attenuer-les-pressions-avec-une-commission-d-enquete-juridique_563154.html or http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/international/2010/06/08/002-israel-enquete-civile-mardi.shtml. I putted Asian source because the text is the same but in English language. This is a speech made by AFP ( The Official French Press Agency ). You can find more sources if you want, but I see no reason for excluding this speech of this Israeli minister Samuel B52 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It should not be excluded. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the inquiry panel has now been approved by the Israeli cabinet. According to the BBC, it will discuss both the legality of the actions during the raid and the wider question of the legality of the blockade. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so we could include this speech of Benny Begin and also this RS of BBC. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to: what Benny Begin was suggesting is what has now been announced. Begin's speech is now history. Physchim62 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I think that the lead is too long, and requirs a lot of editing. There is also some redundancies in details in it. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical result of edit warring. Please be more specific though Marokwitz (talk)

I agree with Marokwitz, could you please explain exactly what would you like to change ? Samuel B52 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One example: the lead first says: "Nine people were killed by Israeli commandos in a conflict that ensued aboard one of the ships", and in the next paragraph: "Activists aboard the flotilla's largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces as they abseiled onto the deck of the vessel". This is redundant. Both say the same thing, but use different words. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrested v. detained

I think the lead saying that activists are "arrested" is not correct, for instance Washington Post uses the word "captured". AadaamS (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrested or detained are the terms frequently used in reliable sources. Why do you object to this term? Marokwitz (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree to change "arrested" as "captured" in accordance with Washington Post RS and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the word captured makes sense. Also, pretty much all the RS use the term arrested, and Israel also used that term. The definition of the word captured just does not apply here. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think both words are fine, but changing "arrested" to "captured" implies that IDF had no jurisdiction to preform the arrests, and this is taking POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So, perhaps should you read the exact definition of the two words. In this case, in international water, and without war declaration, we don't "arrest" ( suppose a jurisdiction ) but we "capture" ( no evidence of jurisdiction ). In this case, legals evidences miss. I agree with ShalomOlam. This is taking POV Samuel B52 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To me "detained" is more neutral than "arrested", as "arrested" does seem to imply a legitimate jurisdiction (which is disputed). Physchim62 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: "arrested" is less NPOV because it implies the soldiers had jurisdiction, "captured" simply means "to take control" and passes no judgment on whether that control-taking was done legally or not. Since the legality of both the raid, the flotilla and the blockade is in dispute, I think the question of the legality of the various actions should be left to the "Legality" section and left out of the lead. Therefore I think "captured" is less POV than "arrested". If the majority of RS use the term "arrested" then fine, let it stand as it is. I have used en.wiktionary.org to look up the definitions of "arrest" and "capture". AadaamS (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Detained will be the most neutral term. Marokwitz (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

as WP:RS and neutrality policy, we don't have to change the sense of a RS to make him neutral. "captured" is required as RS. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The reliable source being currently used (Washington Post) says "protesters were offered the choice of flying home immediately or facing arrest and imprisonment. By Monday evening, most were opting to be arrested" 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Detained" is indeed used in the picture caption of the link I posted above, but can also mean to be put under judicial custody and the legality is disputed. Why do you prefer detained to captured? Oh wait ... I googled and bbc.co.uk, telegraph.co.uk and other sources use the term "detained" and "detainee". So I agree that detained is a good substitute for "arrested" AadaamS (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

because legality is not clear about that event ( see special section in Talk page ), we should use "captured". this source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/06/02/DI2010060202027.html use "captured" which is correct. It's preferable, I think, to use first a dictionary to know the signification of a word, not a press magazine. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition of detain - confine: deprive of freedom; take into confinement - I can't see what's non neutral about this term. Marokwitz (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Redent All of the proposed words – arrested, detained, captured, held – can be used in the case of a legitimate detention. My problem with "arrested" is that it is only used in the context of legitimate detention, and the legitimacy is disputed here. "Captured" seems to imply that the activists were all running around the ship trying to avoid being captured, when the vast majority were not. On the other hand, "captured" seems appropriate for the IDF soldiers who were held by the activists, as we can assume that all of them were trying to avoid being captured. Really POV terms would be "kidnapped" (used by the Irish Foreign Minister in reference to the activists) and "held hostage" (used by several editors on this talk page in reference to the IDF soldiers). Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree(?), and would vote for Israeli soldiers (and flotilla ships) being "captured", activists being "detained". My problem with "arrest" is not so much the implication of legality, as Israel think they act in accordance with Israeli laws, but the implication of a subsequent judicial process and punishment - while most (or is it "all" now?) detained activists were simply sent home. Similarly, "taken hostage" implies being captured for a specific purpose (negotiation, say), while here they were simply released. Ketil (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, though I'd maybe prefer something less dramatic than "captured" for the soldiers, it's difficult to think of anything more appropriate. "Arrested" is, I'm sure, supported by some RS - it's also not very neutral (it implies a legal basis for the detention, etc etc). "Captured" or "detained" are far better. If we could find one word that covered both situations (soldiers + passengers) I'd be very happy, but that's maybe asking too much... TFOWR 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think all hell would break loose if we said "detained" for the soldiers! Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ketil, the article should not just reflect the Israeli view on the legality of the detentions! As for the release of activists, there's another slight problem in the lead with the sentence "Israel responded that it would release 620 of the 682 arrested people and deport them back to their countries." As I understand it, Israel wanted to keep certain activists, but relented after diplomatic pressure from Turkey. Not all the activists were immediately deported, because some were too badly injured to travel, and Israel allowed at least one relative of a badly injured activist to stay to accompany them. The last news I've seen was from about Friday 4 June, which says that there were still two wounded Turks in Israel [7]. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: I don't see why one word should cover both what happened to the passengers and what happened to the IDF soldiers. The aim of the IDF force was to capture the flotilla ships with all on board and force them to go to a destination not of their choosing. The flotilla never had the aim to capture IDF soldiers. (Just for the record I still agree on "detained" to describe what happened to the activists) AadaamS (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Captured" also suppose an intentional preparation before. It's the case for military units who "captured" passengers as prisoners. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I still prefer captured to detained (which means "take into custody", implying legal confinement), I still far refer detained to arrested. Most people here seem to agree on "detained" so can I go ahead and change it? Or should we have a vote or something? The article still says "arrested" btw. AadaamS (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed it to 'captured' since there was clearly no consensus there. I suggest you change it to detained as per your comment above. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think captured would be the best since both arrested and kidnapped carries legal implications. // Liftarn (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

this removal about Jewish NGOs and Rabbis

Please note that I don't agree with this removal : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367947631&oldid=367940744.

It's important to know that some Jewish NGOs and Rabbis had reactions and balance POV. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That belongs in the reactions article. By the way there were also Muslim clerics who criticized the Flotilla. Marokwitz (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The removal don't respect consensus Samuel B52 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific reaction by specific and relevant group(s) would be better than "some rabbis ..." But mind we don't cherry pick, this poll provides some information on Israeli public opinion in the wake of the attacks: only 8% thought too much force was used, 84% said the IDF should do "whatever it takes" to stop a possible convoy of Red Crescent ships. RomaC (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And ? We saw people riot in Israel where an 21 years old American artist had be touched by a riot gun in the head and loose one eye. It's important for balance different POV. We don't have the same source in France. Around 50% of people said that Samuel B52 (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, keep the mention about "Jewish NGOs and Rabbis" reactions as it was for POV , so please undo the removal. It's important for POV to know that not all Jewish community agree this kind of violence. Please envisage too put a commentary about that video regarding a riot in Israel to protest against violence and about the order forces who shoot in pacifist people :
source vidéo : http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/3/emily. May be could we put a commentary in "reactions" section. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) To specify "Jewish NGOs and Rabbis" here does not provide balance or a NPOV. I will actually add to that section that some suppoted the raid. Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Samuel B52

{{editsemiprotected}} As Talk page, in "claimed in a working paper" section, I would like to remove this sentence in IHH section article " According to France's former top anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the IHH had "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad" when he investigated them in the late 1990s.[58] " If it's not possible, I would like to add balance with the French specialist as Talk page request in the same section. Thks

Samuel B52 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ok.--Brendumb (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) How does cherry-picking uninvolved individuals' decade-old personal impressions of the IHH improve the article? By poisoning the well? Removing per the discussion above (Brend beat me to it) RomaC (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 (!) Done here, thanks Brendumb. This does seem a bit too detailed for this article, IMO. TFOWR 13:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

someone reinsert? i missing something?--Brendumb (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes here another editor has replaced it. RomaC (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The guy is an expert on terrorism and the view supports the POV that these guys were not just an aid organization. It is an important issue and should remain in the article per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to have an opinion on the IHH in the article about the IHH, instead of an article about a raid at sea? ;-) TFOWR 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already done one IHH page! And as we talk before, this is not the IHH page. If we describe all allegations about all people in this article, we will have a too long article I think. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's relevant to the raid since they claimed they're an aid organization while others claim they are involved with Islamists, including the Israeli government. This is a POV that deserves to be represented in the article. It's certainly more relevant than them having special consultative status with the UNESC (which all the people who are worried about relevance and the length of the article seemed to have missed). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the editors calling for removal of a cherry-picked tarring of a group in the aid flotilla. Rightfully, in this article we also don't get into decade-old impressions of/allegations against, say Likud or Benjamin Netanyahu, by random Frenchmen, however venerated they may be. This just isn't the place. RomaC (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the IHH is banned from operating in Israel is (possibly) relevant, but should be balanced by the fact that they are not banned in most (if not all) other countries). Including Brugière's opinion, when he couldn't convince his superiors or his government while being the head of the anti-terrorism unit, is simply WP:UNDUE. Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we remove Brugière's opinion, we are left with a POV presentation of IHH as a respectbale humanitarian aid organization, with no hint of the opposing POV, which is significantand notable. This opinion was carried by several reliable sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we're left with an article all about the IHH, which we link to several times. We should not go into minute detail about the saintliness/evilness of the IHH. We should not go into minute detail about the saintliness/evilness of the IDF. There are articles about these two organisations already. We should stick to what sources are saying about the Gaza flotilla raid itself, not try and wedge commentary on tangentially-related topics into this one. TFOWR 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is important that a casual reader who won't follow the link to the main article won't get the impression that the IHH is an organization without controversy. It's not like we're inserting 3 paragraphs about the IHH here. There's one sentence saying something nice (which is arguably relevant to this article), and one saying something not so nice (which seems pretty relevant to this article since it supports the official POV of one side involved in the raid). That's NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to having the IDF's view of IHH. I do object to this view, here, because he seems a fairly minor figure in the grand scheme of things (pertinent, perhaps, to the IHH article but not to this one). Put it another way: should we include some expert's opinion on the legality of the Israeli state? It might support the IHH view of Israel, it might even be relevant to the IDF article or even Israel, but I'd strongly oppose it here. TFOWR 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't object to having Israel's view of IHH, why do you objecting to having 3rd party expert's who support this view included? If the view is notable, surely it's also notable that not only Israel thinks this way? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the aticle is too big as it currently stands and don't see why we have to back up the claims of the IDF when we have an article which covers it. Mo ainm~Talk 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Because in order to achieve NPOV we're supposed to cover all notable POVs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

...and I have no problem covering the IDF's POV. Or the IHH's POV. I do have a problem giving WP:UNDUE weight to either side's POV by wedging in various tangentially related experts' views. Detail belongs in the articles concerned; this article should focus on the details of the raid, and the generalities of the related topics. TFOWR 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should WP:SUMMARIZE the article it's linking to, and this issue is a major part of the IHH article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and saying that the IHH dispute the IDF's claims, and that the IDF dispute the IHH's claims - they're both fine. We need to summarise the relevant parts of the article - that Israel considers the IHH to be linked to terrorism. We do not need to go into minute detail why. Nor do we need to go into minute detail about the IHH's views. TFOWR 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the fact IHH has been accused (not only by Israel) of having links to radical Islamist groups belongs in the summary of the IHH article we have in this article? I'd prefer if it were mentioned in general terms rather than the words of one guy, but I didn't think that sort of thing would be allowed in the article without a specific ref. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, I do believe you're putting words in my mouth! :-o We agree that stating that Israel considers the IHH to be linked to terrorism is OK, and we agree that the IHH considers itself to be a humanitarian organisation is OK. And I repeat: a reader who wants to know the gory details about the IDF, the IHH, or anything else, can click on the link and read the article. Where we want detail is on the raid itself - you know, the subject of this article ;-) Not the tangential details about the parties involved, the individuals involved, etc etc - if the details of these things are relevant, they belong in the relevant article. TFOWR 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A reader can click the link, but we're supposed to WP:SUMMARIZE the article for him according to MOS. This issue is about half the IHH article. You'd expect some mention of it in the summary.

Also, whether a major group in the flotilla is connected to radical Islamism is not a tangential detail. Particularly when it was mainly members of this group who were involved in the violence, and they present themselves as a humanitarian group. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Half the IHH isn't dedicated to Jean-Louis Bruguiere. The article split is (let's say you're right, say 50/50) between the IHH claiming to be a humanitarian organisation, and the IHH being claimed to be linked to terrorism. So... let's summarise. The IHH claims to be humanitarian. The IDF claim it's linked to terrorism. That seems to summarise the IHH quite nicely, without any need to drag in Jean-Louis Bruguiere to speak for the IDF, or Joe Bloggs to speak for the IHH. Can we get back to discussing the raid now?! TFOWR 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not say half the IHH is dedicated to Jean-Louis Bruguiere. I said half of it is dedicated to the issue of connections to radical Islamist groups. Also, the IDF is not the only group that claim the IHH has these links. So lets try to summarize a little better. I'll open a new section since this one is getting too long and complicated to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to add this material is WP:SOAPBOXING under the guise of adding WP:NOTABLE opinion and violates WP:NPOV. Do we really have to get into a "this expert said but this expert said" battle? NickCT (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what WP:SOAPBOX means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you make a claim, you should support it. Just saying "you are wrong" is rude. As for soapboxing, we are talking about an individual person's claim, which is very well within the boundries of soapboxing. --386-DX (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 386. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess you were saying that to Nick who accused me of soapboxing without supporting the claim?

We're not talking about an individual person's claim, we're talking about a claim made by one of the main groups involved in the subject of this article against another involved group, of which all the casualties were members. We have a 3rd party expert who supports this claim. This person is a RS according to wikipedia policy, his interview was covered by several major RS which makes it notable, and it was made in the context of the raid, which makes it relevant.

Also, the allegation of connections to Islamist groups is a major part of the IHH article, and we're supposed to WP:SUMMARIZE that article here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Samuel B52, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} in Legal assessments section, we should add this :

- " French activists aboard flotilla intercepted by Israel's Navy have filed legal complaints against Israel. The complainants charge Israel with “abduction,” “sequestration,” “violence with weapons” and “rerouting a vessel” in international waters, their lawyer, Liliane Glock, said last Friday. The cases were filed in the two activists' hometowns of Marseille and Evry, south of Paris. The plaintiffs said they were being helped by three French parliament members. " Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak unexpectedly canceled his visit to Paris, fearing lawsuits over a recent Israeli raide on Gaza-bound aid flotilla, said Yediot Ahronot on Sunday."

( English Source : "French activist complaint against Israel" : http://jta.org/news/article/2010/06/06/2739466/french-activists-file-charges-against-israel ) ( English Source : "French activist were help by minister" : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3903695,00.html ) ( English source : "Israeli Defense Minister canceled his visit to Paris " : http://www.eurasiareview.com/201006133126/barak-avoids-france-visit-over-flotilla-raid.html ) Samuel B52 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel B52 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please use inline citations so we know which one belongs to which. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence belong to the first link, the second to the second link, and the 3 to the 3 link. Is it enough clear ? Samuel B52 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me please if it's enough comprehensible ? Samuel B52 (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade

Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 386-DX (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH section

The IHH section is currently not a good summary of the IHH article. Around half the main article is a section called "Allegations of Islamic-extremism affiliations". Several groups have made these allegations, as well as several media outlets. IHH has close connections to Hamas. These issues are relevant to this article. None of them appear in the summary we have in this article, which makes it extremely POV and not in line with WP:SUMMARIZE.
I'm open to suggestions on how to fix this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The IHH article is currently subject to heavy dispute and edit wars. The IHH section in this article is very much in line with the IHH article looked like until yesterday. There is no RS or official source confirming the extremist or terrorist affiliations of IHH. Exluding hearsay is not POV. Most important of all, this issue has already been debated numerous times now, and it is not at all courteous of you to open a new section on the talk page merely because you disagree with the earlier discussions. Please continue above in the relevant section. --386-DX (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I said above I'm going to open a new section since that one is long and became hard to follow. I guess you missed that because that section became long and hard to follow. Also, the issue is now different. While I do appreciate the lessons you're giving me in courtesy and manners, perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions and keep your comments to content.

Anyway, After reviewing the relevant policies and guidelines, I no longer think we should put in specific accusations by specific people. We do need to summarize the other article better though, and that should include this controversy since it's pertinent to this article. Excluding an issue that has been discussed at length by various RS is the textbook definition of POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to summarize the entire article: that would be pointless. There is already a {{main}} hatnote and numerous links for anyone who wants to finds out more about the IHH. The summary should be of points related to this article, and I think we do quite well as it is. How would you feel if someone added a section "Israeli atrocities during 'Operation Cast Lead'", on the grounds that it was relevant to the actions of the IDF 'commandos'? You'd think it was POV-pushing and SOAPBOXing wouldn't you? That's how many editors feel about the repeated attempts to use this article as a mouthpiece for IDF propaganda over the flotilla raid, taking that propaganda as the proclaimed truth even when the IDF itself has contradicted it. Or, here, taking two-bit gossip to slur an international NGO, just because it happens to work in Gaza. Physchim62 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to summarize the article because that's what MOS tells us to do. Points related to this article include whether IHH is a humanitarian group as it presents itself, or a group connected to radical Islamism as various sources claim. This would be relevant even if not most of the violence surrounded this group, and all the people who were killed were its members. The fact some of them declared their wish to become martyrs as is common with radical Islamists, makes this issue even more relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62. --Kslotte (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, WP:TANGENT and WP:IRI --Brendumb (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This information is relevant, WP:V, WP:N, and assuming we put both the allegations and the response, WP:NPOV. Any chance one of you will come up with a policy based reason to exclude this information? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DICK? Physchim62 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read that? It's says don't be a dick. Please try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of you guys: Please read WP:CIVIL, and keep your comments related to the article. We have to keep the IHH section short and npov as the article is already WP:TOOLONG. As I said, this has already been discussed extensively, and repating the same arguments instead of checking the talk pages will not get you anywhere. --386-DX (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link to report abusive, childish users, such as physchim62? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you sould ask to Sam Lowry at Brazil_(film). He worked at the minister of truth. ;-) Samuel B52 (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

String of new edits

A user has just made 15 edits in about two hours, almost all are in line with the Israeli military and government perspective/position on the event. The editor did not appear on this Talk page to propose/discuss. Some examples:

[8]

Added details of a Palestinian "Revenge attack" two weeks later

[9]

Changed order, activists' and flotilla organizers' accounts moved from top to bottom of accounts' list. Another problem is a false edit summary: "journalists' accounts first, obviously" which does not mention that the edit also moved IDF account ahead of the Flotilla passengers' accounts.

[10]

Changed order, put "paint ball guns" before pistols in IDF. Problem is this goes against consensus that the pistols and live rounds caused the deaths which are the notable aspect of the event. Also removed "The Mavi Marmara's passengers later reported gunfire, blue flares and deafening noise from the first helicopter at this time." with false edit summary "redundant" when in fact this is the only mention of flares etc.

[11]

Inserted lengthy and controversial IDF-embedded Ron Ben-Yishai account at the top of Journalist's accounts. Edit summary: "(obviously) sole coherent journalistic account of events" goes against Talk consensus.

[12]

Added Ramallah lynching to See Also?

[13]

Changed "Nine of the activists were shot and killed " to "Nine Turkish IHH activists were killed". Again a false edit summary

[14]

Changed "Israeli officials have accused the IHH of sending a group of activists on the MV Mavi Marmara determined to instigate violence" to "Israeli officials stated that IHH activists on the MV Mavi Marmara were determined to instigate violence, and released videos of participating IHH activists declaring their desire to be martyrs" adding IDF's weasely and emotive "martyr" notation.

[15]

Added unbalanced "Israeli officials and interviewed soldiers said that the soldiers fired live ammunition only after their lives were in danger" to lead, not to the IDF account of events where such positions belong.

[16]

Added, to lead, "Israel formed a commission of inquiry to investigate the incident, headed by retired Supreme Court judge Jacob Terkel and including international observers." this unbalanced by international criticism of the internal commission.

[17]

Changed "soldiers said that the soldiers fired live ammunition only after their lives were in danger" to "soldiers and an eyewitness journalist said that the soldiers used their pistols only after their lives were in danger" this not supported by sources.

Strongly believe it should not fall to pro-Wikipedia editors to sift through and clean up this sort of blatant, aggressive advocacy editing. If editors are here to push a government's POV they may be in violation of conflict of interest. RomaC (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I AGREE. Why didn't we discuss about that ? I ask removal for all of them until we find consensus. Wiki is not a government blog Samuel B52 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• RomaC, have you discussed your concerns with the editor? They may be unaware that their edits are causing any concern. TFOWR 09:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) My apologies, you did. TFOWR 09:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why any editor can't simply improve or revert on the edits made by JDE. As long as a reason is clearly stated why, then even though it might be considered a burden, the modified edits will stand. I did revert 2 edits which I found not to be sustainable. One referred to "open fire" which clearly had 3 articles to support the use of such statement. Plus the one regarding "paintball guns and pistols" which is a clearly confusing wording sequence. Other editors who believe the other edits are not adequate should modify the according edits with reason as to why. Nothing I see is preventing this.GaussianCopula (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement that several activists claimed that the Israelis "opened fire on the ship" before boarding is not supported by the cited sources and is apparently not true. One of the sources has an activist explicitly stating that the shots were warning shots, which is not the same as "opening fire on the ship". The other sources have ambiguous claims. Like I said, the activists' accounts are often mutually contradictory, so if we are lumping them into one POV, some generalization is required. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing against 3 specific articles, two of which headline the news as "opened fire" and a 3rd one which states on its opening item "soldiers began firing from helicopters above the ship as the raid began." I see no reason why you would want to change this.Why would you consider first hand accounts from individuals involved to be less quotable than those offered by Israeli government sources?GaussianCopula (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a reason why editors should not have to sift through and manually revert controversial, unsourced and falsely-summarized edits made without Talk consensus. The reason is at the top of this article's page: "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully check the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary."

Also we are on a one-revert rule here. If one user makes 15 problematic edits, one editor can't undue the damage. So, most of the edits have stood. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I added balance for two points of your list. Samuel B52 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of those edits are reverts, as they were inserted in the article before but were modified or removed following discussions on the talk page. They were warned before both on the talk page and their user page. I am reporting them for violating WP:1RR now. --386-DX (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel war minister E Barak chicken of French court and cancels visit to France.

[18] As AP says he cancel his trip to France being afraid of possible arrest and prosecution and will move round in besieged Israel. Restricting freedom of movement is an element of siege. This info or ref should to add to the things after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. To complete my edit demand about 3 news ( for which, at now, I'm waiting for a respond ), for this situation about Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, as a part in the section : # 7.3 Legal assessments. see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legal_assessments . Samuel B52 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified title to remove "chicken of French court" since it was just too comical. Will add info to main page. GaussianCopula (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel war minister E Barak chicken of French court was a basic plain language, but I OK modified version in the main article. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that this is completely unneeded and non helpful bringing back the original title and striking it. I have no idea why you would do this but still, I won't revert it, and just mention to you as to why on Earth you had to put that back in the title. It's silly, bad grammar, confusing and nonsensical. Just to give you a hint of what I thought then and now of the title.GaussianCopula (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Barak is Minister of Defence. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok Samuel B52 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the bravery of Israeli commandos

Pedia says

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] while several activists on board said that the IDF had opened fire on the ship before boarding.[16][17][18]

'Said' is chip. It seem to perfectly logic that some brave Israeli commandos get chicken before boarding, thus realizing life endangerment opened fire from air.

(Or) Who saw where they trying to hve will to fight as solders (or this is cultural difference?). To assassin one man sending 27 idem. This is not like Bond behave when a tank shout to stone throwing boys. This quoted sentence should be reworded now mislead the lead. It may be true, but the logic skip over all truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually James Bond a stereotype of British cover ops, today, appeared to commit atrocities 40 years ago. How happened that 'terrorist' are on peace side and blamed Irish had victory in court. Its rather in Jewish interest to follow this British example and confess in court where both sides having representation. By the way was Hamas elected as here was written in section background or not. If so it was removed ? unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Similar for street police

5/11/2010 I's street police shot and kiled a 'terrorist' but P'n demand an investigation. The same rules. I's. was deadly afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

'shot and killed' vs. 'killed'

I think that using the term 'shot and killed' is POV. This implies that the Israeli troops either murdered, hunted down or executed the nine dead people. I think that the term 'killed' is more neutral. If someone disagrees, maybe we should vote on it. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And I'm sure we've had this discussion before... Anyway, "killed" is "killed". No need for scary, POV adjectives or other modifiers. TFOWR 10:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between shot and killed refers to those who were shot and wounded versus those that were shot and killed. At least that is my understanding of it upon viewing the revision. Had there been no wounded, it would be unnecessary, I leave the revision/improvement of this though to other editors.GaussianCopula (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, some people were "wounded" or "injured". Others were "killed". "Shot and wounded" and "shot and killed" are both over-long, and risk opening the POV floodgates. TFOWR 10:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. --Kslotte (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated before. The correct wording of "shot and killed" should be "wounded and killed". I do not see though any implication of POV regarding what is being implied with regards to possible executions using the wording "shot and killed". I only see it as poor wording. GaussianCopula (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × but I'm not shure) No. Since no single person was killed other way. All killed were shot. It is understandable: this looks bad for some groups but i.i.z.a are minority, very active however globally-numerically minor.99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You indicating, but since they were shot and killed is important to differnciate from other possible happenings; there may were also shot and missed, wounded by bounced bluets, wounded by bluet penetrating targets (eg doble shots), shot by friendly fire, only exception "for over-long, and risk opening the POV" will be: killed and survived. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shot and killed" does not mean execution-style, although there are witness accounts that say "They walked up to the man co-ordinating facilities for journalists, put a gun to his head and shot him dead at point-blank range" [19], this backed up by autopsies that say shot in the back of the head at less than 40cm. Now there's some scary modifiers. But just "shot and killed", that dispassionately presents the cause of death. They didn't have heart attacks, they didn't fall down stairs, they didn't get kicked to death -- they were shot and killed. How is that POV? And the term "shot and killed" is a common one, with 17 million ghits. RomaC (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "shot and killed" is potentially misleading, even if it is strictly correct. It seems to imply that only nine people were shot, which is untrue. Also it implies that the all nine were shot dead, when it is alleged that three or four of the victims died because the IDF actively prevented them from receiving medical attention. So I'm happy with just "killed", as this sentence is in the lead and we're trying to keep the lead as short as possible – we can explain the gory details later in the article. Physchim62 (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Killed" is even more dispassionate than "shot and killed". "Shot and killed" is indeed a common phrase: I don't believe that should deter us from better phrases. And shame on The Herald for using purple prose... I'd cancel me subscription if it weren't for the fact that I steal my flatmate's copy...

"Wounded and killed" makes no sense to me - you're either "wounded", or you're "killed". It's like pregnancy - there are no half-measures ;-) Ditto for "killed and survived" - I assume that should read "shot and survived" (which I would be OK with).

TFOWR 11:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How can wounded and killed make no sense to you? If you are shot then A> You are killed or B> you are wounded. Doesn't seem difficult, I would think. GaussianCopula (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I read it as "wounded and killed" is an OK description. You meant "wounded" is OK, and "killed" is OK - both or which I'd agree with. Apologies. TFOWR 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

sO WHEN you admit misunderstanding and apologize why you do not change it back to shot and kill. the word shot was cut during 'discussion' contrary to notable reality. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to apologise to you, too - I have no idea what you're saying.

Just to be clear: I strongly prefer "killed" to "shot and killed", for the reasons stated above. I strongly prefer "wounded" to "shot and wounded" or "hit with an iron bar and wounded". I am OK with "shot and survived", because surviving being shot is somewhat unusual.

TFOWR 12:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not your sorry. Now I'm sure what do you strongly prefer. I hypothesize that you want wash out the words and shot and kill is to strong wording to bad for one side of flotilla "clash". Can you falsify it ?99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! And that's quite right - "shot and killed" isn't as neutral as simply "killed". My concern is that if we start using phrases like "shot and killed", then we'll end up with an explanation for every injury. I won't change the article — I avoid editing it unless there's a serious problem — but it does seem that there's consensus here to make the change, so I'd certainly have no objection to another editor changing it. TFOWR 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "Neutral" doe not mean avoiding facts. RS say the activists were shot and killed, these deaths are central to the event's notability, it is not right to censor this info. RomaC (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "shot and killed" is used twice:

• He stated, "There is no doubt from what I saw that live ammunition was fired before any Israeli soldier was on deck." and that two persons were shot and killed before the soldiers had started boarding. (my emphasis)
• Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid, including ...

On the first occasion it is unnecessary to specify "shot and" - it's readily apparent we're talking about live ammunition being used. I fail to see how this is "avoiding facts" or "censorship".

On the second occasion I repeat my earlier point: it's purple prose - the key thing is that nine people died. We've already told the reader how they died, so, again, "avoiding facts" or "censorship" don't apply.

Cheers, TFOWR 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

but we need accuracy and no approximation. " shot and killed" inform how they have been killed. It's not purple prose but accuracy. I Agree with RomaC. We need this sentence as it. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

and this is absolutely not a POV, it's very factual ! Samuel B52 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC and Samuel B52. "shot and killed" is just factual. To remain NPOV, it needs to be in the context of a "clash". But that's certainly true in the lead. So, I vote for putting it back. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I concede there's a case for it to be included in this part: He stated, "There is no doubt from what I saw that live ammunition was fired before any Israeli soldier was on deck." and that two persons were shot and killed before the soldiers had started boarding (though I still consider it redundant). Is that where you were thinking, or did you mean the WP:LEAD instead (or as well as)? TFOWR 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

detail of

(numbers ~) 60 passengers where wounded 40 shot and 9 (all) killed by shots 4 from close range 5 from distance. Details of wounds on both sides should be described. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A few things -- IP 197.244, I also often have difficulty understanding what you are writing please don't take it personally but I assume you are challenged with English -- so, is it that you want "shot at close range" in the article? That is there, later in the article. I also thought that belonged in the lead as it was reliably sourced and germane. Second, TFOWR I like that fancy outdent line, is it new I see how it's done I will use it. As for the cause of death, strongly believe it belongs on first reference (can be just "killed" subsequent to that if outside a quote) and it's not a mere detail it is central to the event, and not at all, in my opinion, is this "purple prose," which I understand to be flowery or ornate writing, it's a very concise, well-supported and undisputed description of how these nine died -- I think it's one of the most important pieces of information in the lead. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent}} is cool! I don't know if it's that new, I've been using it for a few months at least. Purple prose? That's probably a little unfair of me, and is more a comment on the newspaper that used that term (it's my local paper...) I still think "shot and" is redundant on the first use, as it's not within a quote, and clear that the previous quote is referring to the use of live ammunition - consequently I don't consider it necessary to qualify "killed". The key thing is that "two people were killed before the soldiers had boarded" - how there were killed is (a) obvious, and (b) not that important: what's important is that they died, and that they died prior to the boarding. TFOWR 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why stating the cause of death (shot) can be POV? Is there any doubt that the cause of death was indeed gunshots? What about alternative ways to phrase it? "Shot dead"? "Killed by gunfire"? // Liftarn (talk)

IMHO, Liftarn is right, per my comments on the issue when it was last discussed on Talk. To reiterate, if "shot and killed" indicates some kind of execution scenario to you, than replace it with "killed by gunfire" or something else that clearly indicates the cause of death, since that (like dying) is the common denominator for the nine dead. If neither "shot" nor "killed" is in doubt, how in the world is this POV?--Carwil (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm certainly not saying that an editor arguing for "shot and killed" is non-neutral; my objection is to the phrase itself - for the reason Carwil highlights: it can be read as suggesting more that is intended. My primary objection, however, is that it's redundant - unnecessary - and that keeping it only serves to qualify or modify "killed". I'd actually be kind of OK with "killed by gunfire" on the first use. Beyond that I'd strongly prefer simply "killed". TFOWR 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Further clarification: we do state the cause of death, immediately before the first usage of the phrase "shot and killed": it's for that reason that I consider "shot and" to be redundant. TFOWR 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll sit back awhile and see what other editors think. But the first reference to the nine passengers' deaths right now is just "killed". There's nothing about cause of death until later in the body of the article, and there it is attributed to an al-jazeera journalist. I regard (and I believe RS support this) the deaths as perhaps the single most important aspect of this event, and so prefer concise information on cause of death on first reference. The suggestion that "shot and killed" is POV is only worthy of our consideration if there is another (non-fringe) POV that contradicts that they were shot and killed. There is not. So, other objections might be verifiability, but that is also sound. Undue weight? First-reference carrying two words of content on cause of death is not going to bloat the lead. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

May I summarize this discution? It is agreed that the term "shot and killed" is factual, but it is still potentially misleading, and also redundant. Therefore, the term should be replaced with "killed" (I believe that this was the majority opinion). ShalomOlam (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ShalomOlam, it's not redundant at all, at least not in the LEAD, where RomaC and I are both concerned about it. I agree that it is a bit redundant in the first instance mentioned by TFOWR above, but have no idea why the specificity is a problem, since it rules out other possible scenarios of their deaths. And I agree with TFOWR that the lead could say "were killed by gunfire." Where the three of us are perhaps not in agreement is this sentence:

• Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid, including ...

This is the beginning of the deaths section; stating the cause of death adds to clarity, at no real cost. Again, there are multiple permutations "died of gunshot wounds," "were shot and killed," "were fatally shot," "were shot dead," you name it. In the end, the issue may not be the "execution connotations" of "shot and killed" but the timing connotations: "shot dead" implies immediate death, which didn't occur for some (they were still seeking medical attention later); "shot and killed" might suggest immediate death, but certainly is open to them dying later.

Finally, I count Bob Drobbs and Samuel B52 on the side of keeping "shot and" or "by gunfire", alongside RomaC and myself; where's the majority?--Carwil (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout "shot and killed or mortally wounded"? I see that a lot in history books. The implication is clear: people died, some instantly, some after awhile, and all as a result of gunfire. Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shot and killed" is a very common phrase in English, perhaps second-language users should be aware of this (17 million Google hits). I see no policy-based reason for removal: they were shot, and they died. On the other hand, "died from gunfire" is weasely and especially problematic as there is, in the article, the assertion that passengers took away commandos' guns. We have a very common term describing what happened, we ought to use it. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove two words ( POV )

At line 8 and 9 : " At least seven of the commandos were also wounded—two seriously "

We should remove " two seriously " it's POV. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily just the other were wounded by not seriously. Like the i.spoke perso say "on the other ships no one get scratch", in fact some get broken bones. All true , snaky true, but you cant catch by quoting: ".ijk." <this was lie. 11:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk)

I don't see why that's POV. To me it seems like factual information (and credible) that has been reported by reliable sources. We have much less information about the wounded activists, but that's not a reason not to use the information we have about the wounded IDF. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

But i need has additional words according to IDF two Israeli solders were wounded seriously and five not seriously. There were no independent side to verify 'IDF words' eg the UN, EU, AL or someone considered an independent investigator. It can be added that 4 passengers was killed from close range fire eg 6 inches and 5 from long distance. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I don't have a problem with saying something like "the IDF said that two of their soldiers were seriously injured". I would take issue if we were to say "two of the soldiers were seriously injured" without a reliable source to support it (I consider the IDF and the IHH unreliable in matters like this). TFOWR 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We can add "According to the IDF", but the wording seems okay to me, that is how I think all news items are related. (One IDF man had his ear sliced off, although it was later reattached in hospital.) It would be good if we had infomation about the wounded activists too. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for this quite biblical healing?

As a general observation, the entire article is rife with unqualified statements of fact that should be attributed. E.g., "according to", "reported that", etc. Particularly with conflicting accounts aplenty, statements of fact should be attributed to sources rather than simply citing the source in a footnote at the end of a bald statement of fact. Other than that I think the article generally reflects strong efforts to maintain NPOV despite the incredible level of controversy. Marbux (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) OK, there were (at least) 24 activists who were sufficiently seriously wounded to need to be transported by air ambulance back to Turkey; 19 of them on 2 June [20], three of them on 4 June [21] and two of them unknown date but after 4 June. Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit more. Israel said that there were seven activists still in hospital after then Turkish planes left on 2 June [22]. That fits with a report I read (but can't immediately find again) that one of the hospitalised activists was Australian, as the Anatolia reports above only refer to Turkish activists plus one Irish citizen. So, 26 activists needing hospital treatment nearly 72 hours after the raid. Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's a source that one of the hospitalized activists is Australian. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"wounded" is factual ; "seriously wounded" is POV like "seriously dead" is POV , but "dead" is a fact. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Seriously wounded" is a common term meaning life threatening wounds. It's used in the media daily, unfortunately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Dead is dead. There are, however, leves of wounds, hence the emphasis when they are serious. This is not a POV adjective. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Chesdovi. A broken arm is "wounded", but rarely life-threatening: in English, we have the phrase "walking wounded" for people who are hurt but not seriously. At least one Israeli soldier was still in hospital several days after the raid, which seems pretty serious to me – so were many activists, it should be said. Physchim62 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thks, I learn English in the same times ;-) (in English, we have the phrase "walking wounded") So, I understand that , as us, you have words to explain your point of view. This is a POV adjective and purple prose as it on the sentence. U need to be more accurate because the level of gravity is not the same for all of us. Samuel B52 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Use the medical term "in serious condition," as reported by hospitals in the wounded section. Adjust with other RSs. And relax with the tension.--Carwil (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some general comments. 1) I suggest that Samuel read up on what POV refers to for wikipedia purposes. What he refers to as POV above is not within the wiki meaning. I recognize he is a new editor, and understand how a new editor can make that mistake. In short, POV refers to a point of view of an editor; not to a RS having a point of view -- if an RS reports something, it is verifiable, and not a POV issue. 2) Saying "the IDF said" is fine. But I would not say that the IDF is unreliable in matter like this. 3) Agree w/the statement that attribution is appropriate where there are conflicting reports on an issue. 4) As to the counting of the wounded activists, there is a danger in adding from different reports of double counting. We already know that one of the dead had dual citizenship. The same can obviously be true of the wounded, with different sources reporting different nationalities. I would stick with one RS that supports a statement as to total wounded, and not mix and match which might lead to overcounting.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a single RS for the wounded activists, but we do have two RSs for a single point in time (evening of 2 June) which say that 19 activists were repatriated to Turkey in air ambulances while 7 activists remained in Israeli hospitals: for that single point in time, I don't think there's any danger of double counting. Estimates for the total number of wounded activists vary widely, from about 30 to about 60, hence the use of the vague term "dozens" in the article. Let's hope that one of the investigations into the raid comes up with some sort of criteria for "wounded" and "seriously wounded" and does a tally of the activists based on those criteria: for the moment, there's little more that WP can do. Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: So far as I know there is no standard definition for "seriously wounded". People usually read it as life-threatening wounds, but when the German police count officers seriously wounded during a demonstration the definition is something like "wounds that led to a sick certificate". This is of course not at all the same thing in general. In this case we have no reason to believe that the IDF is using such a ridiculous definition, but it's necessary to read sources with the problem in mind. Hans Adler 09:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The French penal code also uses the criterion of the sick note to classify different grades of criminal assault! Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right about our French law. But it depends from points of view made by one or several medicine specialist. We have specialist who make a diagnostic and a another one, or several, for counter analysis. Please also note this fact : the level of gravity will not be the same regarding the situation. Some "seriously wounded" are just "wounded" during a war or a big disaster like after the earthquake in Haïti. The classification is not the same because we need to improve our actions to save people. Some timea "seriously wounded" is just a "wounded" and he can wait for treatment. So "wounded" is a fact and we need to be accurate about it or just say " wounded" because we are on a lead. There is a special section to describe with accuracy how the "wounded" are. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your work in this section. But tere is still hangover

At least seven of the commandos were also wounded.

the bolded words are distraction. I cant believe that the I's reporter cant count up to eight or they cover it up. If there will be 8 they will certainly reported it already given the broken chairs legs they counted as weapons. The word 'also' is for enlarging the I's casualties or to diminish it - distraction. Or if the peoples had to be blinded in dozens what about it can say (one) more than half dozen for the sake of symmetry ?99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree : we should also remove this words At least and also Samuel B52 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is what the RS says, it is not a distraction. It is a verifiable (to RS) statement. And appropriate. There are various reasons why the "At least" language might be used, but we don't have to know which is the case (e.g. -- 7 in one hospital, 7 from the helicopter landers, etc.). It's sufficient that the RS says "at least" -- we don't vary what the RS says to suggest that fewer Israelis were wounded. That's POV-by-editor editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The notability of an encyclopaedia is better with no approximation. I think that now, we know exactly how soldiers were wounded. there is no need to do allegation, ambiguity and others things like that ... It's not the WP policy to be like that Samuel B52 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Mavi Marmara Boarding" subsection

Seeking feedback here. The lead paragraph in this section reads: "The boarding of the Mavi Marmara resulted in violent clashes between activists and Israeli soldiers. Each side claims that the other started the violence, and the parties disagree on who acted in self-defense against illegitimate actions of the other side." The paragraph is no longer defensible as presently drafted.

The problem stems from the fact that the Jerusalem Post has posted an interview with the commander of the Sheyatet 13 boarding party to whom is attributed a statement that the boarding party fired warning shots and dropped stun grenades before rappeling down to the Mavi Marmara. "'We had no choice'" The Jerusalem Post. 4 June 2010. The only "parties" or "sides" (second sentence) mentioned in the lead parasgraph are the activists and Israeli soldiers who boarded the ship. To my knowledge, there is no published account of the boarding of the ship by eyewitnesses from the Isreaeli side other than the Jerusalem Post article. There were earlier inconsistent claims by the Israeli government that Sheyetet 13 (variously) did not fire live ammuntion or engage in violence againast the Flotilla members until the commandos were first attacked by the Flotilla members. See e.g., Haaretz article cited elsewhere in the article ("Israel says its soldiers began shooting only after a mob of pro-Palestinian activists attacked them ..."). In my vocabulary, "warning shots" count as "shooting" and dropping stun grenades qualifies as engaging in violence against the Flotilla members, both according to the Sheyebet commander before the Israeli troops set foot on the ship.

Both side's published eyewitness accounts say that the Israeli commandos fired live ammunition and dropped stun grenades before boarding the ship. And to my knowledge, the Israeli government has not, since the publication of the Jerusalem Post interview, repeated its prior claim that its commandos did not fire live ammunition or employ violence against the Flotilla members until the Flotilla members attacked the commandos. So most charitably, there are three, not two versions of this critical stage of events: (i) the Israeli government position; (ii) the Flotilla members' eyewitness accounts; and (iii) the Sheyebet commander's position. The latter two versions coincide, but the earlier official Israeli government position conflicts with them.

I am sensitive to the fact that the lead paragraph was drafted before the Jerusalem Post interview and that information available soon after an incident often needs to be revisited after more evidence becomes available. Under the circumstances, the lead paragraph was obviously written using a NPOV. But it no longer is NPOV because of the Jerusalem Post interview. The Israeli side has fragmented into two positions, one of which is a published eyewitness account that agrees with the relevant Flotilla member position on what transpired. That is why I added a sentence to the end of the lead paragraph about the Jerusalem Post account, since rewritten slightly and moved by someone else to the very end of the "Israeli accounts" subsection. But the now misleading lead paragraph was left untouched. I do not agree that the Jerusalem Post interview deserves afterthought treatment in the last paragraph in the last subsection of a section that begins with an inconsistent lead.

I have no interest in engaging a revert war so I am seeking feedback on how to deal with this topic. I apologize for the length of this post, but the Jerusalem Post article bears heavily on the weighty issue of which side attacked first. Important stuff. The lead paragraph stating that there are only two unified oppposing sides to the version of events needs rewrite. What should it say? Marbux (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always interpreted that paragraph to refer to a real dichotomy between the two accounts. The activists say that live ammunition (not warning shots, not stun grenades) was used prior to the boarding, and that two people were killed before the IDF landed on the Mavi Marmara. The IDF (including the account you cite) say that live ammunition was only used after IDF troops landed on deck. One side must be wrong there, but it's not clear who. Note that I say "wrong", because either side might be mistaken.

The commando who gave the interview does point out that live ammunition was used very soon after the IDF reached the deck, which is consistent with the Al-Jazeera reports of a confirmed death very soon after the troops boarded (while the satellite link was still up). Of course, "very soon after" is no proof of "before". Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In French , I have several source said that IDF shot first before boarding the ship. Witness said IDF shot from helico and from Zodiac. 4 witness tell that. I mentioned the 4 names in this Talk page. I you need source, just ask me Samuel B52 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont feel the "we had no choice" article is all that safe to base conclusions on, since it seems more written to provoke emotion than to provide objective facts. There was another Haaretz article ) in which an interviewed soldier described firing as he rappelled (the fourth soldier) as he saw one of the others threatened. It seems a bit more of a news article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not yet responding here. I have a deadline to meet in four hours. I will aim to swing onto this immediately after I meet the deadline and will aim to pull this note at that point. I appreciate your responses. Marbux (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

User:Samuel B52 has removed two references in the article to the fact the nine passengers killed were IHH members. [23] [24]
This information is sourced to the Wall Street Journal [25] (see sub-headline) which in his last edit Samuel claims is not a reliable source.
Since I will probably be reported if I try to fix this, could someone else do it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, in this revert he claims the Australian is not a reliable source, which it is, and that the information does not appear in the source, which it quite clearly does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article says "members of or volunteers for". I'm quite willing to put it back in, but I don't think it belongs in the lead where you originally placed it: "activists" presumes that the people on board were reasonably supportive of the IHH, to go further is to presuppose that there is some special status attached to being an IHH member, and that's something which is far from proven. Physchim62 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ article clearly says the IHH says they were members. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From the fourth paragraph of the source:

The nine activists known to have been killed in the clash on board the IHH-owned Mavi Marmara were members of or volunteers for the group, Mr. Yildirim said

Of course, everybody on board, apart from the ship's crew, could be said to be a "volunteer" for the IHH, so the source isn't really saying much but, if it helps calm things, I shall place the accurate version of the source in the "deaths" section. Physchim62 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside your personal opinion on what "could be said", the WSJ sub-headline says:

Group Says Nine Killed Were Its Members

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are incapable of reading four paragraphs of English prose? While you're perfectly capable of writing forty such paragraphs to disrupt this talk page in trying to defend the morally indefensible. Do you honestly believe that a headline is more significant than the text that is below it? OK, I'm really going to take your opinions seriously... Physchim62 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR: I suppose the above is also "straying close" to a line?

I also have to wonder when one of the multiple people who were lecturing me about the article being too long and that we don't need the opinion of a single person in the IHH section are going to do something about this No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What did Physchim62 say when you raised the issue with them? If you're not happy with Physchim62's response I'd suggest the next step would be WP:WQA. TFOWR 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which issue? His abusive comments or his lack of consistency on what should or shouldn't go in the article?

If you're referring to the abuse, the next step if I decide to take one will be WP:AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the second diff you provide, Samuel is correct to revert your insinuation: the relevant point is that the IHH is banned in Israel but not in other countries, especially not in the U.S. (because we all know that the U.S. is really lax on extremist islamicist terrorism, don't we). Physchim62 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. IHH was banned in Israel as part of a group. What group it was is relevant. Since you decided it's important to mention the IHH is not banned in the US, it is also appropriate to note that the group the IHH belongs to, was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this with Samuel B52, I appreciate that.

Samuel B52: as I understand it, sources in languages other than English are OK, if we are unable to replace them with English sources. We prefer English sources, and try to replace non-English sources where possible, but non-English sources are OK if we're unable to replace them. (Itsmejudith - is that correct?)

Beyond that, I've not looked at the edits in question. It would be good if you could both continue discussing here, if that's OK? (If you feel it would be better to continue privately, I've no objection). I'll try and take a look at the edits shortly.

TFOWR 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair summary of WP policy on sources to me. Physchim62 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So, If you change the word and make your own story, may be could you write on a blog ? Please follow the source as well and use the correct words like the reliable source. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Said the guy who inserted words into a direct quote [26] claiming he was adding accuracy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Please use a reliable source to make links and additions as WP policies. Is it clear enough ? Samuel B52 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62, I disagree with your comments claiming all activsts were implicitly volunteers with IHH. It can be said that all activists are volunteers with Free Gaza. But IHH is just a subset of the Flotilla, who _may_ have had an overall very different agenda than the Free Gaza people. So, if RS say that all of the dead come from this one particular group, that is relevant and notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All, I disagree with your comments about IHH, because a resume is not a story. If you want to write a story about IHH, there is a special page for that in WP or in a web site. We are talking about a raid not about the list of the US Tresory terrorist list. This is not a James Bond jungle ; we need to follow WP policy. And please keep your allegations about me and keep courtesy. Cheers Samuel B52 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If something is WP:V and some editors think that it's relevant, the right way it to subscribe to WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism and let it be. This talk page has a reason. I'm not sure why this information is being removed. Can't you improve it instead of removing? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What if the information is verifiably incorrect? As in "The Washington Post claimed in a headline that all the dead were members of the IHH, but later in the same article quoted the president of the IHH saying that the dead were either members or volunteers." Physchim62 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article did not quote the head of the IHH. Notice the lack of quotation marks. Anyway, any reference to them being members or volunteers was removed from the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It had been removed, yes, and not by me: I restored it here, and it's still there at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was removed from two places. You restored it in one. Could you correct the lead as well? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, because I don't think it belongs in the lead. Physchim62 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the fact these people had something like this in common doesn't belong in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting it in the lead would mean that "Wikipedia" (whatever that is) thinks that piece of information is particularly relevant: I don't think it is particularly relevant, not to the point of putting it in the lead. The dead had many other things in common: they were all male, they were all muslim, they all had Turkish parents, etc, etc. What is so special about them all being either members of or volunteers for the IHH? Isn't that something to be expected on a boat kitted out by the IHH for an official mission of the IHH? You are trying to promote a factoid to a status it doesn't deserve, in my opinion. And don't forget, as I mention further down this thread, that the fact that all the dead were connected with the IHH can have multiple interpretations, not all of them the ones I think you're trying to push! Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As for verifiable information that some editors think is relevant, there are literally thousands of WP:RS which state that the IDF has committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (aka, "war crimes") in the very recent past, and I'm sure that several editors believe that this has some connection with their behaviour on 31 May. Would I be justified in creating a section detailing all the allegations made against the IDF over the past, say, three years in this article on the grounds that it is verifiable from reliable sources and has a connection with the subject of this article? I would promise, of course, to include a sentence at the end stating that the IDF denies all the allegations... Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubt is healthy. Is there dispute about WP:V, could you provide disputing WP:RS quotes? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Maybe you want to improve the phrasing to reflect the source better. Feel free. However WSJ is an WP:RS. Agree, kind of sloppy one. Agree though also with number of other editors - the basic idea is clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:FORUM, which basic idea? That IHH members were particularly violent? Or that the IDF singled out IHH members for "special treatment" (aka "murder")? There's evidence for both those points of view, which is why we need to be careful in our treatment of sources. Physchim62 (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed not a forum, editors should not treat it as such to promote their opinions. The basic idea is reflected here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which RS said that the IDF singled out IHH members for "special treatment"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Abundantly-sourced cause of death is not important enough to go into the lead, but specific aid group affiliation, based on one source, must be there? Why? RomaC (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was the only editor still arguing against cause of death in the lead?

Agree: the lead should summarise the article, not get drawn into protracted and lengthy discussions about details that belong in the article-proper. People died and were seriously injured. How they died, what organisations they may have belonged to, and what colour is their hair - those details should be kept out of the lead.

TFOWR 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about what color is their hair. This is a relevant common denominator. If we have room to say they were "pro-Palestinian activists" we certainly have room to say they were IHH members, a group that said their goal was to reach Gaza or die trying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to the article. I'd be interested in a convincing argument as to why it belongs in the lead. TFOWR 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because when you have several hundred people from 37 countries belonging to various groups, but only people from one country and one group are killed, it is very unlikely to be a random event. When leaders of that group declared they will reach Gaza or die trying, the fact that all the dead are members of the group becomes even more pertinent. The fact they were all IHH has been very widely reported and is very important to the subject of the article and should be included per WP:LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's been widely reported (if it hadn't, it wouldn't be in the article-proper). I'm asking why, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the lead. Is it a notable controversy? Is it important to the topic according to sources? Simply stating "per WP:LEAD" doesn't help me understand why you feel it should be in the lead. I understand and accept that this is all pertinent to the article-proper - just not why you feel it belongs in the (already excessively long) lead. TFOWR 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD:"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources".

Do we disagree that according to reliable, published sources this is material is important? I think an argument can be made that both Israel and the IHH have been playing it up, which makes it even more important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly important enough to be in the article - no dispute there. Where I do have reservations, which thus far have been unaddressed, is the importance to the topic. I can't see this affecting the reader's understanding of the topic, if it were left out of the lead. TFOWR 13:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It affects the reader's understanding of the topic because the reader won't know that despite having people from 37 countries and various groups (mentioned in the lead), only people from one country and one group were killed (not mentioned in the lead). As mentioned above, this is not random, and it has been widely reported and noted as significant by reliable sources. "Widely reported" puts it in the article. "Noted as significant" puts it in the lead, as far as my understanding of LEAD goes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now we're cooking! OK, I'd suggest that the first step would be to state why it's notable in the article-proper, then summarise that in the lead. (Or, given that I'm a self-confessed numptie, point me towards the part of the article where the flotilla participants are covered). TFOWR 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll wrangle some sources when I have a few moments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! (And apologies for dragging this out) TFOWR 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice rationalization. But how do you explain that this was known before boarding. skip next section. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

more aid flow to Gaza

Two or three ships set sail now via southern routes . By ABC. The flow is clear follow so up belongs to aftermat h section. W ill one some pose oppose ? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should open a new one, and change the name of the flotilla, like I demanded in that talk page above . Samuel B52 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. What i missing in this article is the info-timeline . Accounting when and who released what to the mass media. It will be quite informative , will be factual and will be good help in dePOVing the article. I see a lot of conflicting press events and this go unsubscribed. Going in steps through this article show how much conceptions and deceptions was released to tire the public opinion. I understand the purpose of psychops but this is part of modern way in information era to war an infowar. Eventually it Can be made as new article and linked to main. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another flow from Lebanon [27]. Some plan to parachuting aid from private airplane. The use unattended hang gliding is considered faster than by balloons but as pointed in source balloons was used in siege of Paris so French party seem to have sentiment to it. Finally Israel government asking other governments to stop their citizens from sending more aids. By Israel to EU: Stop your citizens 244 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be a new article about any new flotilla, but only when it becomes notable. We don't even discuss the Rachel Corrie in any depth here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

so 600+ news refs in Lycos and Altavista and other searach engine is not enought for notability?

May be it can help you to understand why a RS is not reliable and notable. If you want to know why, please search on internet about allegations that Israeli war planes will fly on Saudi territories to bombard iran. Look clearly the date. And look for another news which make apologises of this allegation. Have a look on who write and all others details... Here, we follow some "primary" sources because some RS are used to lunch allegations. Newspaper with a good reputation don't do that. About other flotilla, in France, we read since several days that a Iranian boat leaved his country to join Gaza. Iranian planed to give aid with air transport also. RS which said that have a National notability. Samuel B52 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we need masked comando murder people to make event notable. The fact that someone trying to help besieged refuges is itself notable.

Proposed change

from:

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] while several activists on board said that the IDF had opened fire on the ship before boarding.[16][17][18]

to:

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] what several activists on board confirmed that IDF felt endanger before boarding and had opened fire on the ship while boarding.[16][17][18]

The comando was told in advance by its political arm :

(larger quote) This operation was approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak and will be led by the commander of the Navy, Lieutenant Colonel Eliezer Maron, who is nicknamed “Cheney.” If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force. “We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats,” said a high ranking officer. “If terrorists have gotten on the boats or if there is an intention to use hot weapons against our forces, we will use full seriousness and caution. We want to avoid using force but as soon as there will be danger to the life of our forces we will be forced to use live fire as a last resort.

more 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the proposed change works - I dont see how the activists can confirm the feelings of the IDF. The English of the proposed change also needs to be improved. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is composed sentence, it (try to) unite common and Israeli logic. But you can rephrase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Clovis, the activists has not confirmed what you suggest. --Kslotte (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about:

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] whilewhat not negate passengers statements that the IDF had opened fire on the ship before boarding.[16][17][18]. The use of force was planed before boarding and troop was told they life will be endangered

I can't see what the proposed change is trying to acheive in terms of improving the article. The Maariv article appeared three days before the raid, so cannot say anything about what actually happened! There's really nothing we can do at the moment to be more precise about when live ammunition was first used: the activists say just before boarding, the IDF says just after boarding, we can only note the two positions. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I so not see I's(Israelis) saying they didn't fire before boarding. How you get this conclusion form the words in lead ? It just say They fired when they felt they were enlarged. Dosnt say after boarding or before. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons in the lead

Does anyone have a link on any discussion concerning the removal of weapons in the lead? I thought it was a huge part of the story and good there but it was removed and I wasn't paying attention to the discussion page.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I miss to that the half truth/half lie statements are silenced/resowed. I propose move it moved to separate article documenting how the "excellent Israel PR" works. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

99.90.197.244, keep your comments on the subject how to improve the article, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. --Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I bag your explanation? Again: to improve the article is important to track of the flow of leading or misleading information. Then will be clear how and why the article changing. Some blatant lies go uncounted, just deleted and replaced by new better 'release' The info-clash is important part of so called 'clash'. I do not see any effort to improve the article to and write a section/co-article about it.99.90.197.244 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you start a different talk section on the infoclash. Wy were the weapons used removed from the lead. It was all verified by both sides and independent media.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

removal of balancing

Marokwitz, please explain why you remove balance of POV ?

see :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368374219&oldid=368372100

It is a important balance of POV. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for 27 nations is a relevant POV. And I just put it. I will put it again.

And please explain why don't you talk here for that removal ? Samuel B52 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I already explained. This is too much detail for a background section. No need for a full set of quotes and counter-quotes regarding the blockade in this context. This article is about the flotilla raid. Those opinions can be added to the blockade article. Marokwitz (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Marokwitz. --Kslotte (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I explained that it is a balance POV. We can't remove it without removing the explanation about security POV. Wiki is not a book. We have place speciality to do that balance POV. It is a WP policy to respect balance POV Samuel B52 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason for the removal of this material is quite clear. It simply didn't add anything to the article. Lots of quotes and counter-quotes are not an encyclopedic format. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK all, please should you follow in next section to find a consensus. OK ? We close this one Samuel B52 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ask for consensus to clear the "Background" section and Balance POV .

I think that this section is not for a explanation of the Gaza conflict with too much details. WP have already a page for that which is linked. Do you think that it is relevant to add several links to insist about rocket and prisonier here ? A conflict is a conflict. there is no need to explain each action made during the conflict. So the security argument to explain the blockade and a balance argument seams to be OK to understand the situation. At now, there is more 10 arguments or links for rockets and so. We understand with one link. There is no need to put in all the pages several links for rockets and prisoners.

===> Please have a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Background

===> We don't respect POV and it make no sense to repeat same arguments several times.

I ask for a consensus to find a way to improve this part. It could be :

1) = POV = " Israël said blockade is for his own security " ==> a source or citation

2) = balance of POV = " blockade does not make Israel safer " a source or citation

Samuel B52 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove synthesis in lead section

The sentence "But some nations still asked for international investigation." is based on two reports about two governments that demand an international investigation. However, we cannot extrapolate from two examples to making a statement about governments or nations in general. In particular, given previous statements that have not been withdrawn, it rather would seem that not "some", but a large number of nations are asking for an international investigation. Also, "still" seems to imply that nations in general would retract their calls, while "continue to ask" would be a more neutral description. I ask for consensus to remove the sentence from the lead section (and the article), as it is not properly sourced and tends to express a POV.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree to replace "but" by ==> "Some nations continue to ask" . But I strongly disagree to remove the sentence from the lead. It resume the international investigation demands. ( Sorry my English is poor ;-) ) Samuel B52 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph starts with the sentence: "Israel has rejected calls from the United Nations and others for an international investigation into its raid on the Gaza aid flotilla." So the information that there is a widespread call for an international investigation is already in the article. The main reason for adding the sentence "But some nations still asked for international investigation." seems to make the reader believe that other nations would have retracted their positions. That's a subtle way to misrepresent the facts, and we shouldn't allow this to remain in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I explain the process :
1) International demands for international investigation  ; 2) Israël propose an internal investigation  ; 3) Some nations' dont agree with that and continue to ask for international demands. So it's very clear and there is no redundancy I think. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no inherent contradiction here, of course. However, "some nations" is an extrapolation from two examples and therefore constitutes synthesis.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that a guy like Ban ki moon who work for the United nations is not relevant, could you explain what is relevant for you, and what is not, please ? this is not a extrapolation when a guy who work for several nation ask for international investigation. I think there is no ambiguity here. I've made a modification as you asked before but now I don't see why you demand that . Samuel B52 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think that you completely misunderstand my arguments, Samuel B52. Of course the position of the UN is highly relevant, and Ban's statement may well be included in the lead section. What is unacceptable is that the sentence "But some nations continue to ask for international investigation." makes readers believe that other nations would have retracted their calls for an international investigation. This is a subtle way of introducing pro-Israeli POV into the article, without proper sourcing, and this is why the sentence should be removed.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this quote: somehow it was omitted or removed

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me take the second question first. What the U.N. Security Council called for was a credible, transparent investigation that met international standards. And we meant what we said; that's what we expect.[28]

Please note that "But some nations continue to ask for international investigation" has already been modified. May be should you have a new look and give us your impression at now Samuel B52 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Some nations continue to ask for international investigation." is the current wording of the sentence. In my view, removing the word "but" does not change the meaning of the sentence significantly. In particular, it does not remove the synthesis from the sentence.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So, I'm sorry but why did you spoke about that word just before ? I understood that it was a problem for you, as you wrote above. The sentence is important to make synthesis of the situation and for the reader's understanding. It's completely in accordance with a factual situation and with linked ref. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are writing "The sentence is important to make synthesis", yet synthesis is exactly what Wikipedia policy is strongly urging us to avoid. As arguments in discussion on Wikipedia are judged and weighted based on the extent to which they are derived from Wikipedia policies and guideline, please provide such arguments that follow from those policies and guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

according synthesis I agree with you that we should give more accuracy. So, because for the moment I found two nations and Ban ki moon as a United nations representative, I propose something like that " Ireland, Turkey, and United nations , in the person of Ban ki moon, continue to ask for international investigation ". And now we are in accordance with synthesis. What do you think about that proposal ? Samuel B52 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no countries watsoever did support the Israeli investigation AFAIK, it is not SYNTH to suppose the international position in this regard stays the same. If you want, find some country (US?) that did support the Israeli investigation and write: "by now, just US has supported this initiative". Otherwise you'll be doing some kind of SYNTH. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand you point of view. We should add the term "institution" and the accuracy about US position. So and like that : "Ireland, Turkey, and United nations institution, in the person of Ban ki moon, continue to ask for international investigation. In his side, US support the Israeli proposal of a domestic commission ". Do you think it's better ? Samuel B52 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What I tried to say is that many countries demanded an independent investigation (i.e. not by a party involved) and did not yield that position when Israel announced this investigation. So, lacking official statements on the contrary, it is SYNTH to suppose that they did accept the intiative. Is it clearer now? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's clear, but the sentence don't talk about any kind of acceptance. It just explain the process of a sort of diplomacy work. One side continue to ask for international investigation and the other side support a domestic commission. Where do you read that there is a lacking official statements please ? We show, I think, that there is two different points of view in this affair, because we have the two terms " international investigation" and "domestic commission" and the two side. This is the fact, isn't it ? Or may be could you make a proposal of exact sentence you prefer ? Samuel B52 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer removing the current sentence just to add what (if any) countries do explicitly support the "domestic investigation". As far as we consider that no other country had explicitly renounced its demand for an independent investigation, this is the most appropiate way to deal with the issue. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 10:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

The article title is decided by editors, but we are also meant, in the lead, to note alternative terms used in connection with the event. We currently have "Operation Sea Breeze" from the Israeli side. To me, this suggests a cool dusk, sipping pina coladas on the beach. Idyllic. But, might there be other ways of terming what happened that we should also note in the interests of a balanced perspective? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Provided the alternative terms are commonly used, no argument here. TFOWR 14:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are several arguments : => 1) how will we name the next flotillas for Gaza ? => 2) The common name of the flotilla was "Freedom Flotilla" see :=> http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/4599521000/ and :=> http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,698916,00.html. The Flotilla belong to the FreeGaza movement and they called the flotilla "Freedom Flotilla". This is enough relevant for an argument I think. Do we need to count the number of medias which called the flotilla like " Gaza Flotilla" and the others who called " Freedom Flotilla " ? Why can't we use the two or use simply " Freedom flotilla for Gaza" or something like that ? Which is more common to use ? Your personal name or a sobriquet made by journalist ? Samuel B52 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to consider future names just yet, not until it happens (at which point we will "disambiguate").

I think there are two, separate issues here:

1. What the article is called (currently "Gaza flotilla raid").
2. What alternative names we list in the first paragraph of the lead.

I'm ignoring the first issue for now, though I suspect you're quite right, and it will become an issue sooner or later (there have been several attempts to change the title already. For the record, I opposed them at the time because it was quite soon after the article had been renamed. I'm less concerned about that now).

On the second issue, the first paragraph of an article should state the article name in bold, then list other names (like "Operation Sky Breeze"). The issue here is whether we include another common name or names. I've not looked into this myself, but it sounds as if you believe "Freedom Flotilla" is another common name? What do other editors think? Any other options?

TFOWR 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So this is my question also. We have several common name used. In this case which is more relevant ? I think that the creator name for the moment is more relevant because in newspaper we have the two name used . ( Sorry, I don't understand what means you are going to dodge1. I have no doubt that you are not talking about your car but I didn't find an alternative signification). I'm OK to wait and put the name in bold for that time like your proposal as "Freedom Flotilla". Samuel B52 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with TFOWR, the article name is not really the issue right now but alternative names which are meant to be noted in the lead. RomaC (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with You. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to move information

The sentences

"Israeli deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon told CNN that MV Mavi Marmara carried 600 peace activists and 75 mercenaries with links to al-Qaeda and other terror organizations. "They were well equipped and ambushed our soldiers. We found the money on their bodies, $10,000 apiece" he said."

at the beginning of the subsection "Israli investigation" are not related to the investigation. While Israel may, of course, include that in its investigation, there is no source in the article that says that this is or will be the case. I ask for consensus to move these sentences to an appropriate place.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should you give more accuracy please? Where do you want to put that ? Please explain your POV ... Samuel B52 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no POV involved here. The information could go in a (new) sub-section in "Post-boarding", or in the section "Investigation for on-board weapons", which would have to be renamed in this case.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

{ {collapse top|Comment which is not related to improving the article }}Including RS is a main factor to improve article 244

Do Ayalon or the like pay to the commandos to shot and kill the $10000 priced bodies? Unprecedented merce-mart if is true a but where is it RS?99.90.197.244 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)|}

when I asked " please explain your POV" it was for asking you to give us your point of view on " how we should modify as your request". It was not about WP policy  ;-) But I agree with you, we should place it in " post boarding " like sub-section. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sami -- I would suggest again, as I have before, that you read up on wp:pov. I recognize that you are a brand new wikipedian, without any prior wikipedia experience (as are a high number of editors on this page). But if you continue to use a phrase that has a specific wikipedia connotation, in a manner that is at odds with the wikipedia usage, that does not help others understand the point you are trying to make. It's like an American in London insisting on using the word subway to describe a train, while the Londoners understand it to mean an underground pedestrian passage. I hope that helps.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand and I agree , That's why I made a explanation above. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Cs32en : I agree with your proposal. We should have more accuracy like that Samuel B52 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" on see also by Chesdovi

Please, look at this modification : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368405919&oldid=368395588 We don't write all the plans which are not yet done. I will removed it. first, make the plan, and after we will think to put it here. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is not a very helpful way of categorizing that edit. However, the "Kurdish Freedom Flotilla" seems about about as notable as the "We con the world" video – a sick joke, but not important to the article. Mind you, I'm intrigued as to how the Israeli students are planning to get a flotilla of boats carrying humantiarian aid to a land-locked territory! Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, how can we categorize this kind of edit ? did I made a mistake ? Samuel B52 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" would be better than vandalism! Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the Kurdish flotilla is not relevant, that is all you really need to say. But keep in mind the wikipedia principle of WP:BOLD and the WP:1RR. If you've already used your revert for the day just mention it in the discussion page and if someone else agrees with you they might remove it without you needing to do anything :)

Personally I'd agree with you on the idea that it's not relevant, especially since at this point its just an idea, not a real event. However, if they do actually try to send aid that might change things. But at the moment it's just a political statement. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur w/ Zuchinni one. As long as "its just an idea" it's probably not all that notable. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been removed, just as I was going to do it myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I kinda think it's an OK "see also" - but you know I'm pretty liberal on "see alsos" ;-) I saw it as a humorous response to a tragic situation, kind of like the "...and finally" item on the evening news. I won't argue for its inclusion in the section, though - I suspect I'd lose horribly...! TFOWR 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with TFOWR. I suspect that he is correct that he might lose horribly in a one-vote-one-editor no-matter-how-few-edits vote (sort of like the General Assembly at the UN) ... though he would win dramatically if !votes related to the number of edits each editor had made on wikipedia, or included only those non-IP established editors (say, with more than 3,000 edits) (sort of like the Security Council at the UN).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is questionable for that article. I support leaving it out until this has been developed into something more concrete. And I think a link in reactions sub-page would be more appropriate. --Kslotte (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly sceptical as to whether the plans will ever become more concrete: what I liked about the article was the Quixotic nature of the plan... "let's sail away, to a land-locked territory!" ;-) TFOWR 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, if it teaches the youth a bit of geography, it won't have been all bad :P ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

;-) ...and, to be fair, it's a more practical idea than levitating the Pentagon! TFOWR 10:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't use the word "vandalism" against editors, it violates WP:AGF and may get you banned. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the accuracy. It was a ambiguity with exact term. I understood now. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fate of participants section

In the fate of participants section, there are a few paragraphs that start with "as of 1 June" which seem not to be relevant anymore. I believe all the passengers have been released by now, including Raad Salah and the other Israeli Arabs.
Remove? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Good catch. Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Samuel B52 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect otherwise. Would you care to explain why? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we confirm whether or not the passengers have been freed. My impression was that only the Israeli citizens remained in jail beyond June 1st. But I have no idea what their status is now. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The four were released to house arrest on the 3rd. All the passengers were deported by the 2nd.

There are several paragraphs that can be removed, as they are no longer relevant. They can be replaced with something describing the fact the passengers were detained until their deportation a couple of days later, and that the four Arab Israelis were released to house arrest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Kslotte (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To be pedantic, there were seven non-Israelis in hospital on 2 June and three other non-Israelis who were not deported (one beacuse her husband was one of the people who had to stay in hospital). But it's fair to say that all non-Israeli activists were released by the end of 2 June. Physchim62 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to do a little consensus dance :D Zuchinni one (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go outside and have a smoke while you tango. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

four Arab Israelis were released to house arrest = you mean: "arrested in house arrest". It seem cynical or relational: when Gaza on starvation looks like (KL) camp do house arrest mean release/freedom in pro-Israeli opinions or press?.99.90.197.244 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "released to house arrest" is not good. "Placed under house arrest" would, I think, be better? TFOWR 10:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mr Nice Guy : because we need to know the chronology. but we should find a better solution to keep the chronology clear, I think. Did you have any idea to do that ? Samuel B52 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

David Trimble

Comments on David Trimble's use as an inquiry observer by Craig Murray.     ←   ZScarpia   19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The current cite is to Der Spiegel. I'd regard a newspaper as infinitely preferable to a blog, even a blog from an academic specialising in international human rights. I suppose a second cite wouldn't go amiss, but I'm not convinced it's a great source. TFOWR 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I posted the link is because Craig Murray's posting contains links to the websites of news organisations.     ←   ZScarpia   19:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, my apologies. Well, in that case: the Guardian is great source! (The BBC and Yahoo articles focus on the Bloody Sunday enquiry, the Guardian looks at this incident). TFOWR 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like editorializing to me. David Trimble is who he is; the Israeli inquiry is what it is. We should try to report describe them, but without anticipating the future. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not convinced. The Guardian article was from their news section, not their blog section, and did comment on EU reactions to the raid, and NGO's reactions to the EU's reaction. TFOWR 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Captions to photos

I suggest we standardize captions to photos in how they reflect their source. We now have two general approaches: 1) to say "Source x" at the end; and 2) to have text saying something like "taken from a video of x". I don't particularly care which format is used, but suggest that they be consistent.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

could you be more accurate please ? What is your suggestion ? Samuel B52 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is "Source:" in all the photo captions? Is it really relevant to the article? It is mentioned on the fair use rationale, there's not much reason for it to clutter the image caption. SpigotMap 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure it's relevant, I think. We need to know from where come the sources if we want follow it. Samuel B52 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid RS for such a huge addition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368450606&oldid=368446050

The edit above adds a large new paragraph to the "Background" section of the article. The source for this edit comes from a single editorial here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7149459.ece

The author and paper are good RS. But I'm not sure that a single POV editorial can justify such a large addition to the background (which has been repeatedly trimmed due to information overload). Zuchinni one (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton represents the foreign policy positions of a group of countries comprising a few hundred million people, which justifies the inclusion in the article. However, the paragraph is too long, presumably a result of the one revert rule which discourages clean-up efforts.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton balance security argument like write at first place. This is a balance of POV Samuel B52 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not clear if this is her personal opinion or an official statement ... it seems to be more along the lines of opinion to me, but I could be wrong. In either case a single sentence might be appropriate, but a full paragraph is just too big. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton can't take any risk with her speech. Please see High_Representative_of_the_Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy and European Union. Samuel B52 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well there seems to be agreement that this paragraph is too long, it also gives WP:Undue weight to the opinion of a single person. Unless there is objection I will bring it down to a single sentence and include it with one of the other background paragraphs. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question: (I haven't looked at this at all, so bear with me...) was Caroline Ashton speaking in a personal capacity or for the EU? I'd like to avoid personal comments... TFOWR 10:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus in the lead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368455641&oldid=368453750

In regards to the above edit. There is currently a debate over whether to even include the exodus in the 'See Also' section (which I have no objection to) but there is zero consensus and it certainly is a controversial addition to the lead.

I recommend that the contributing author remove this unless a clear consensus agrees with inclusion in the lead.

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about another place ... please, did you have any idea ? Samuel B52 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel, you have been participating in a discussion HERE-"See Also"as to whether or not Exodus should be added to "See Also" so I'd recommend you continue to discuss a possible inclusion there, but for the time being please remove it from the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I Think It's the best place to describe the event and what's happened in the world. As it we understand better the world reaction Samuel B52 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the WP:Lead for an explanation of what the lead is and what belongs there. You will see that the Exodus does not meet the criteria. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence removed. --Kslotte (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I already done. Please see " The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies" Samuel B52 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Read also earlier discussions about Exodus. --Kslotte (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I already done also. please read carefully my point of view and tell me if you don't understand. In the "see also" section discussion on talk page. I'm open minded and clear (I think, but my english is not really good). Please read carefully with attention Samuel B52 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel: You did re-add Exodus, even if consensus haven't been established. There is still no consensus even for See also. --Kslotte (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see a justification for including SS Exodus in the article itself (but as I've said before, I'm a numptie... so if there is a justification let me know), only in the "See also" section. I'd add that the WP:LEAD should only contain information that is already in the article-proper (i.e. excluding the "See also" section, "External links", etc). TFOWR 10:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The possible similarities: the M.sea; a ship forced to changing course, but only one ship. What else was similar? Why not =see also= some other similar 'sounding' raids where some peoples where shot&kill. Anyway both are bad ideas. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the talk page, several users spoke about several reasons to add this link on the article and had given several RS ref. In a such event, the comparison made by some journalists in the world improved people reactions. We saw that in England and in France, this comparison had a repercussions on minds. first because the boat started from a French port, secondly, because it was a British boat. Because several users told before and support this edit, and because RS show the link with this event, why don't we insert it ? 84.97.194.55 (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of Activist accounts

The first couple of accounts in this section, are actually from less biased (if not neutral) crew members who seem to be giving a fairly balanced account of events. Accounts from activists, which are more biased, come later in the section.

Since this is the "activists account" section, should actual activists accounts be given more prominence and moved up?

Or as perhaps a better idea, if we can get agreement that the crew are relatively unbiased, would it make sense to create a "crew member accounts" section, or perhaps even group them with the journalists?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be even better if we could move towards unifying the three current subsections, to try to give a coherent picture of what seems to have happened while noting discrepencies between the different accounts where necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Physchim62's proposal. I'd also like to renew my suggestion to split off the Mavi Marmara boarding section, which might help us to discuss the necessary changes in an orderly way, and would also reduce the length of the article (130kB at present).  Cs32en Talk to me  00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree to to split off the Mavi Marmara boarding section and supprt Physchim62's proposal. I think also we should reduce the length of the article. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of photos in Israeli accounts section?

Is there any reason to have 3 images?

It seems that one is enough, especially since the others just duplicate what's shown in the first image?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem that none of the three images comply with WP:NFCC 8. Physchim62 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If they don't comply, I don't know what does. We already consulted an uninvolved administrator just a couple of days ago and he ruled on this question. In any case the right place to discuss it is Wikipedia:Non-free content review.Marokwitz (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62, did you hear about fair use? These photos certainly comply with that. Also, one photo can't represent the Israeli side or even what was documented from the flotilla. I truely think three is too little, but maybe it's the max can get into wikipedia articles. In any case, limiting to lower number doesn't seem requested and we will not reduce the number of photographes.--Gilisa (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

fair use? These photos certainly comply with that. That's a very bold statement! The images are currently being reviewed at the non-free content review board. TFOWR 09:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When I looked just now, the third had gone (I'm seeing File:Activistboatclash.jpg and File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg. To be honest, both seem OK to me: one is "activists with iron bars", t'other is "activists ejecting soldier to lower deck or ocean". My preferred one is the first, but I'm happy with both, assuming they qualify as fair-use. Last time I talked about images I was complaining that that we didn't have a good balance yet (not our fault, lack of decent images, etc). There seems to be quite a good balance now, FWIW. TFOWR 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)