Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Turkey Islamist goverment supported the raid

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/turkey-denies-offering-assistance-to-gaza-flotilla-organizers-1.320328 This should be added to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.134.102.15 (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The government initially did what it can do so stop the flotilla (http://www.kanaldhaber.com.tr/Haber/Yasam-34/Mavi-Marmaradaki-buyuk-sir-10168.aspx). However, after the flotilla Erdoğan became a hero in Arabic world and the goverment started supporting the flotilla. Kavas (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To the point that, IIRC, they suggested that the Turkish Navy would send warships to escort future Gaza relief flotillas. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: improvised weapons

Tools and materials have been used as improvised weapons. The lead section, however, states that the flotilla carried improvised weapons, thus implying that the weapons would have been improvised and then brought onto the ship(s). Furthermore, "carried" is being used in the sense of "being transported to the destination", while the varios materials that are being mentioned in the lead were simply present on the ships. For the lead, the enumeration of the various items seems to be overly detailed.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm eating supper with a fork and a knife right now at my laptop. Am I engaging in carrying 'improvised weapons'? This is a despicably non-neutral article. Its straight up smear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.119.175 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This knife and fork you speak of, how many Jews are you stabbing with them? If it's more than zero, you're using improvised weapons. Use non-violent means to protest their stealing your dinner next time. CoombaDelray (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• The ship cannot have been carrying "improvised" weapons, since the definition of improvised is "made or said without previous preparation". They can't have been improvised weapons before they were used as weapons. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Date is passed

Seems pretty neutral to me all things considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.45.100 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article is extremely pro-Israel. --J4\/4 <talk> 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The sections describing the individual accouns is ok, but other parts are clearly biased.Andraxxus (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article went full circle, from pro-activist to now pro-Israel, in some respects. I have already discovered sources where information from within them was cherrypicked, where important details were ignored often because they contradicted the Israeli account. I am also worried by the amount of Israeli Government material which is being used to make up key arguments and passages in the article. These primary sources should be substituted. ValenShephard (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably this is the effect of Israel having been the only one to complete an investigation into the incident. However, substituted sounds very POV. Every source should be evaluated on its own merits and not substituted because it is inconvenient to someone. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We should use primary sources with great caution, per WP:PRIMARY. In particular, primary sources should not determine the weight of different aspects of a topic or of different views of an event.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And interviews with "survivors" are not primary sources? I'd say they also qualify for WP:OR if the journalists were Wikipedia editors Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

name

Why is this called a raid if the captains of the vessels had prior warning? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The name comes from the terms that reliable sources tend to use, here is one example. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is self-evidently NOT a reliable source.

I quote, "The military operation severely strained relations with Ankara - a long-time ally of Israel." - Since it is acknowledged as a military operation, it needs to be examined as such. It further says "The 300-page Turkel Committee report found the actions of the Israeli navy in the raid and Israel's naval blockade of Gaza were both legal under international law." It therefore acknowledges that the military operation was a naval blockade. Now the article you pointed to quotes the Türkel report, which makes clear even if you only read the Summary that "on January 3, 2009 Israel established a naval blockade off the coast of the Gaza Strip as part of its armed conflict with Hamas." The Blockade runners approached the coast on May 31, 2010, i.e. well over a year later. "IDF forces intercepted and boarded the Mavi Marmara during an operation to enforce the naval blockade against the Gaza Strip." There was nothing sudden about the intercept. Firstly intercepts at sea are performed according to certain military procedures. It is almost impossible to raid a vessel at sea in daytime, because one of the duties of the crew is to ensure it is not boarded, for example by pirates. The crew at least were very aware of the rules of the sea in a blockade. However, public statements made by the people on board the vessels before they sailed suggest that they were aware of the Israeli intention to stop them, therefore no element of surprise can be claimed to justify the operation being called a raid. The fact that approach by the IDF inspection teams was made by a helicopter made it even less of a surprise unlike the pirate boardings made from small boats.

Besides that it says in the article that IDF naval vessels communicated with the blockade running vessels "...ordering the ships to follow them to port or otherwise be boarded." This constitutes a warning, so there can be no suggestion of a surprise.

Clearly therefore this was not a raid.

So why would you use the BBC snippet news story, and ignore the entire report it was based on that included two foreign experts who were also appointed to act as observers: Lord David Trimble and Brigadier-General (ret.) Kenneth Watkin? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, have a look at WP:POVTITLE. Other sources that use the term "raid" include these: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

However, the labeling of the operation as a raid didn't come from these sources, but from the 'activists' that were interviewed following the operation. The journalists will invariably use the more sensational phrase in titles as a rule, and this should not have been used by Wikipedia editors, that should have known better. This IS an encyclopedia article, and not a 'front page' one. Just because journalists coin a title does not make it so. Moreover, it is so described in the article, where as clearly the POVTITLE does not encourage restating the POV in the article. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have characterized the operation as a raid. This is their own choice of language, they do not refer to statements of activists in this context. A raid does not need to be sudden or would necessarily need to happen without warning.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We may differ on what constitutes a 'reliable source'. This is because journalists write to sell their publications, or at least to be noticed, which are not the prerogatives in encyclopedic writing. Please read raid (military) or even Police raid Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course we may differ, but when editing Wikipedia we'll both have to use Wikipedia's definition. If most reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's definition, referred to the incident as "Zimbabwe Christmas Tree", then that would be the title of this article. For example the Boston Tea Party wasn't really a "tea party", but that's the term that most sources use of it. --Dailycare (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead section of the article raid (military) says that raids are being executed to "finish with the raiding force quickly retreating to a previous defended position prior to the enemy forces being able to respond in a co-ordinated manner or formulate a counter-attack". While there may be some miscalculation on the part of the Israeli military with regard to the level of preparedness on the flotilla's ships, this appears to have been their intention, and this is probably reflected in the choice of the word "raid" in reliable sources. That's also why the whole event happened during the night. Were it not for the element of surprise and confusion, an attacker in possession of overwhelming force would choose to attack in plain daylight.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My Oxford concise dictionary calls a raid "a rapid surprise attack on peoples or premises", the action by Israel was rapid and had elements of surprise (as noted above). ValenShephard (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The military raid article is incomplete to say the least.

In fact the IDF purpose was an inspection of the vessels' cargo for contraband, and not for a "quick retreat". A heli-borne insertion of inspection teams is standard practice, as was the case during the blockade of Iraq. Confusion was created by the people on board that were definitely ready and waiting, and used violence against the inspection teams. This is just another proof this was not a raid. How do you suppose one intends to quickly retreat via a single ladder onto a helicopter off a deck of a ship? This is why the sources you call "reliable" are completely fraudulent by using a vast exaggeration of the insertion in a purely sensationalist way.

My point was that the element of surprise is suppose to eliminate the ability of the opposition to resist (some was expected) in any significant and organized way. Where the raid is in an area that includes civilians (a known), to minimise on any civilians being injured, the raid may be a pre-dawn one when most people are asleep.

However, the IDF announced blockade months and months before, and the stated intention of the flotilla organizers was to run the blockade, resisting inspection in the process, therefore there could be no element of surprise for the IDF, as indeed the images showed at 4AM.

There was no rapidity as the article clearly states that the IDF vessels shadowed the flotilla, communicating with the crews for some time, and only later the heli-borne insertion was commenced.

What you are doing is denying the obvious, and twisting words to seemingly satisfy a very definite desire to present a particular point of view that seeks to suggest some sort of premeditated intention to conduct a raid that is more appropriate during combat operations. However, few combat operations are conducted when armed with paint-ball guns and side-arms. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, you say the article is incomplete. What do you want to add to it? If you have sourced information to add, please do so. Please stop casting aspersions on other editors. It doesn't help at all to say, as you do above "the sources you call 'reliable' are completely fraudulent". For one thing I don't know which editor and which sources you mean. A source can be reliable and you or I disagree with it. We are talking about a (sort of) military conflict here, and of course there will be wildly differing opinions. We reflect what the sources say. We do not make our own interpretations of politics. It isn't easy, so please give people a break and value their contributions as you hope people will value yours. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying its incomplete, I'm saying its utterly wrong by being sensationalist!

Why should I value the contributions of other editors when they clearly don't know what they are writing about, but simply take the word of journalist with an entirely different agenda to that of Wikipedia.

I says "fraudulent" with full justification since it is a fraud to misrepresent something, in this case a vessel inspection at sea incident for a military raid.

No, its not a "sort of" military action at all. The repeatedly stated intention of the IDF was to inspect the ships' cargo. Just because it was a military unit performing this inspection task is not unusual. In most cases elsewhere the inspection team would have included either naval or marine personnel armed with their usual weapons, and not paint-ball guns.

Maritime interdiction operations is not a new concept http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/archive/4321185-0654948/vol3num4art8.pdf. The Canadians call them Naval Boarding Party Teams (NBP), and the US Navy call them Maritime Interception Operation Teams (MIO), and they do it under the auspices of the NATO Operation Ocean Shield, although they are not faced with looking for vessels such as MV Francop. However, their job is still to visit, board, search and seizure, and the US Navy has 24 such seven-men teams. It classifies boardings as: the common Level I and II armed teams that board compliant ships in nonhostile situations, Level III teams trained to board noncompliant ships with high freeboard, thus the need for helicopter insertion, and SEALs handle opposed, or Level IV, boardings. The IDF sent in their equivalent of SEALs, but virtually unarmed by comparison. Why don't your "sources" know this? How "reliable" are they if they don't know the regulations under which boarders operated? In fact they were in breach of regulations. No other navy in the World carried paint-ball guns during boarding operations, even when operating off own coasts!

And its not like the heli-borne boardings are carried out only to inspect vessels, as Operation Megaphone shows. In any case, naval troops from a variety of states carried out similar routine inspections compliant to the UN resolution in enforcing Iraq sanctions. This is no different. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad, see my comment in this thread timestamped 16:24. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to ignore your reference, but if you must bring it up....the Boston Tea Party was an allegoric metaphor, and a simultaneous satire on the relationship between the Crown and the colonies. It is further communicated in the Revolutionary Tea

There was an old lady lived over the sea

And she was an island queen.

Her daughter lived off in a new country

With an ocean of water between.

5 The old lady's pockets were full of gold

But never contented was she,

So she called on her daughter to pay her a tax

Of three pence a pound on her tea,

Of three pence a pound on her tea.

10 "Now, mother, dear mother," the daughter replied,

"I shan't do the thing you ax.

I'm willing to pay a fair price for the tea,

But never the three-penny tax."

"You shall," quoth the mother, and reddened with rage,

15 "For you're my own daughter, you see,

And sure 'tis quite proper the daughter should pay

Her mother a tax on her tea,

Her mother a tax on her tea."

And so the old lady her servant called up

20 And packed off a budget of tea;

And eager for three pence a pound, she put in

Enough for a large family.

She ordered her servant to bring home the tax,

Declaring her child should obey,

25 Or old as she was, and almost full grown,

She'd half whip her life away,

She'd half whip her life away.

The tea was conveyed to the daughter's door,

All down by the ocean's side,

30 And the bouncing girl poured out every pound

In the dark and boiling tide;

And then she called out to the island queen,

"Oh, mother, dear mother," quoth she,

"Your tea you may have when 'tis steeped quite enough

35 But never a tax from me,

But never a tax from me."

The issue here is that there was a correct term to use for describing the incident, and in any case, the use here is of an analogy (a logical method) and not subtle literary figure of speech. However, the analogy fails on even the most basic level of analysis. Wikipedia is after all supposed to be prose which is not derived from a 21st century version of Yellow journalismKoakhtzvigad (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Raid" is reliably sourced. It should stay unless you can show that another term is more frequently used in RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder which reliable sources are being used in Turkish Wikipedia, because they are calling it Gazze filosu saldırısı - Gaza fleet attack Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merge

I suggest we merge the "IDF accounts", "journalists' accounts", and "passengers' accounts", as they largely correspond with each other. The understood sense is that an initial Israeli boat assault was repulsed, a second attack by helicopter and speedboat succeeded, the troops were attacked and responded with paintballs and live fire, and three were taken hostage. Its better than a bunch of contradictionary accounts to confuse the reader.--RM (Be my friend) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is your language.

"Boat assault" - you mean the attempt to board from a small boat?

"Attack by helicopter" - this is where the military personnel rappelled from the helicopters?

Lets try to use encyclopedic rather than journalistic language in the article

Support:

• Support - assuming NPOV language use. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support This should be easy enough. Some accounts will receive less weight. This will read better.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Oppose (for now) Many reliable sources still refer to the different sources when reporting about details of the event. Of course, we may migrate those aspects on which there are factual statements supported by a majority of reliable sources to the top of the section.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You make a valid point, and it may be that source reliability needs to be re-evaluates at the same timeKoakhtzvigad (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• oppose There are key differences in the accounts. This article has moved more and more into accepting the Israeli account of affairs, already, so there is no need to try to give the impression of some kind of agreement across the parties. ValenShephard (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems is that few civilians accepted the invitation to appear before the Turkel Commission. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The accounts from the different sides are indeed somewhat conflicting, better to leave that clear rather than present some glossed over version. un☯mi 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not conflicting in many major details, just minor ones such as whether there were summary executions, when there was firing, etc. The general outline of the flotilla raid is agreed by both sides (IE the IDF was met with resistance, three soldiers captured, and the troops responded with live fire.) Its much less confusing to have it in one section summary.--RM (Be my friend) 19:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You state that there is not agreement on when the firing started, yet then state that there is broad agreement that the troops responded with live fire, some of the journalist accounts would disagree. un☯mi 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Although you won't find anything in the sources, my information is that many initial reports to journalists were confused, with people hit at close range by paintballs reporting as being injured when "fired on". In hind sight this would be correct because although this ammunition is non-lethal, anyone who has never been hit by a paintball, and hit without wearing protection, at close range, is certainly going to get bruised. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also disagreement on what kind of "paintball" munition has been used, and at what range this munition would need to be considered potentially lethal.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement between who? I'm unaware of any paintball ammunition being lethal even at point-blank range Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that IDF infrared footage as well as footage from the ship clearly shows troops being attacked as they descend onto the ship's deck. We can put that whether they fired from helicopters is disputed. Once they rappelled down, they were attacked, and responded with paintballs (reportedly filled with skin irritants according to Ron Ben-Yishai or shards of glass according to Espen Goeffing), stun guns, and according to activists with rubber bullets, and eventually live fire (most activists and journalists agree that the live fire came later).--RM (Be my friend) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Night vision goggles

>as well as ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles, and large sums of money,[6] according to the reference http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897667,00.html , there were no night vision goggles possessed by any of the suspects. 67.170.106.201 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)