Talk:Freedom Flotilla II

Who sign to participate ? more info.

Have started this by adding /Ships/ section. The story is still very fluid, and is maintaining a certain level of secrecy. There is a press conference planned for 27 June 2011. Suspect to get a lot more info at that time. Everett (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK yet another associated aspect: ==tourist sailing== Several yacht owners or cruise operators respond to popular demands sailing along flotilla on open sea. Just examples from quick search: "The yacht will be available for charters", "This vessel and the Seabourn Odyssey will sail the Eastern Mediterranean" "Mediterranean Cruises - Book Cheap, Discount", "12 June 2011. The ship will sail a seven-day Western Mediterranean", "Mediterranean Cruises In June 2011, Prices From $399pp", "Cruises is offering a 12-night Eastern Mediterranean", "Equinox 11 Night Eastern Mediterranean Cruise departing June 27","Norwegian Cruises 2011 ...Gaza". "another flotilla is set to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean, deliberately timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the violent events" and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Claim of "illegal" using Wikipedia's voice

I've had to remove the word "illegal" from the lead, together with its associated refs (), on account of it being an abuse of Wikipedia's neutral voice. The sources cited do not establish a consensus that Israel's Gaza blockade is illegal; indeed, this is very much a disputed position. If someone wants to restore "illegal" to the lead, it needs to be done with in-text attribution.

References

—Biosketch (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. The sources do indeed claim the blockade is illegal. Reliable sources are cited for these claims. These satisfy WP:V. On WP, "verifiability, not truth" applies. If you believe the blockade to be legal, and can find reputable sources also claiming this, then that too can be included and we can say that the legality of the blockade is disputed, linking to either "side's" references. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There are RS which claim the blockade is legal and illegal and every shade of gray in between. This page is not the page to rehash those lengthy and controversial debates. Instead, I've simply put in a link to the full legal assessments from all sides. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I've altered the link to point at the section debating the legality of the blockade (rather than the legality of the raid on the first flotilla) and moved the references accordingly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to keep length of text on legality, and other contentious issues, as short as possible in the opening text section. Would suggest moving those issues further down into article, so they do not have negative impact on readability of top section. --Everett (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As EC says this sentence does not belong in the opening paragraph and we need to find a better home for it. The references were biased: five references supporting one of the mentioned viewpoints and none supporting the other. Three references quoting one person gave undue weight. Recommended style is to avoid references in the lead para since it should mostly summarise content appearing with references elsewhere in the article, so five in a row is definitely too many. I have selected one strong reference to support each viewpoint and concatenated them, in the order the viewpoints are mentioned, in a single inline reference. No more is necessary in this article since the issue is thoroughly dealt with and referenced in the linked article. --Mirokado (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously removed the 5 one-sided references to prevent an edit war. The last thing we wanted to see was a massive stack of 10 or more references in our first paragraph -- 5 claiming the blockade is legal, and 5 claiming it's illegal. But Mirokado's change is better than mine. Two balanced refs seems like the right choice here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Again the opening section is being broadened beyond a simple description of what flotilla actually is. Latest text indicates that Israel and Egypt have offered to allow flotilla to dock. This is an event in the ongoing news story, that really does not belong in the opening section. Perhaps a few new sections are needed. e.g. Preparation (before leaving port), Embarking, Success/Interception of flotilla. It is obvious that this article has strong views on both sides. Let's try to keep the opening section concise as an overview of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettColdwell (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

100:1

1300:13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: What is "100:1" & "1300:13"? 18:48 27UTC June 2011 Everett (talk)

Hoax?

There are numerous claims that the IDF interview with the Red Cross is a hoax. see http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/mathilde-redmatn-and-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza.html , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/CigarGod/flotilla-gaza-palestine_n_853745_85826227.html , http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mr-myers-cites-fiction-but-gaza-crisis-is-fact-2806442.html . Here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm is an article at ICRC website, in which a far less rosy picture of the blockade is painted. In any case, the JPost article isn't a commentary on Freedom Flotilla II, and cannot be counted as "reaction". Removing that section. --Soman (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I said... although my sentences saying there is a possible speculation on the authenticity was censored because it wasn't a reliable source...I never even said it is an outright fake!... now waiting for the e-mail from Red Cross Stationed there to confirm or debunk the myth... I will post the answer here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be debating whether or not something reported in a RS is a hoax. Particularly using random message boards as support claims that it's a hoax. HOWEVER, it clearly was not a response to this flotilla. And so, I fully support it's deletion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Got the E-mail reply....its...erm...strangely answered?...you decide...

"Dear XXXXX,

Thanks for your message and for your interest to get clarification on the current situation in Gaza. We agree with you that there are many media debates around this subject. Regarding the official position of the ICRC on the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, please kindly read the enclosed link with all the information you need: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm

With best regards,

Cecilia " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

missed diplomatic response

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Flotilla_II&oldid=436653813#Ireland was text on prompt response of Israel diplomacy. Now is missing. Such responses are quite rare in diplomacy. Also truncator cut off the f.name of Israel ambassador to Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That has been moved to the correct section, Israel, rather than Ireland. The statement by the Israeli foreign minister does not appear to be a reply to Eamon Gilmore, but is a general statement. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Again You Bastun bas tuned down probable fallacy of Israel diplomacy. Disinformation was done by removing quote from "terror activists, seeking to create provocation and looking for blood". removing date and cutting off whole chapter :

On JulyJune 26, Israeli intelligence said that some flotilla activists may attack IDF soldiers with sulfur in attempt to kill some of Israel's troops.

Why You removed this well sourced text. Which sound quite ridiculous as sulfur is yellow nontoxic soft rock, but it smell is associated from medieval legend with devil activity, anyway is the PRtext Israel choses to chase and is casting some light on Liberman "blood seeking terrorist" thesis.

More contribution is needed to list of participants to reveal those 'blood seeking terrorist' if diplomacy of Israel is real and who they instigated to 'deal of properly' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was error in date so perhaps above may be irrelevant.

Hoax video that was linked by Israeli officials

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Should this info be included under Israeli response ?! Official accounts tweeted this video then later deleted the tweets. Several major news articles have stories on it. Unflavoured (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it would probably be more appropriate to have a small subsection just like "Alleged Sabotage." Unflavoured (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A few more links: [6], [7], [8]. Unflavoured (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it sounds unencyclopedic to me. The article should focus on more important stuff. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since respectable mainstream sources like Haaretz, the Telegraph, JPost and JTA covered it, it's probably worth a few lines. I'll admit that, despite having read WP:NOT many times, I've never really understood how to determine whether something is unencyclopedic in a reliable and repeatable way. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

My test is to imagine whether Encyclopaedia Britannica would include this in their article. Unlikely that they would mention such stuff unless it proves to have some long term significance, and continue to be remembered as a significant detail at least on month from now. Encyclopedic material should stand the test of time.Marokwitz (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the reason I added the links here instead of being bold and adding it directly to the article. The sabotage allegations were covered by several RS sources, and were added to the article. But the hoax video is still only a couple of days old, so I am unsure whether it is wiser to wait a while or to add it now. What is the typical criteria to determine "worth adding" ?! Especially since this is a sensitive issue... Unflavoured (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for more details to develop, but I can't agree that this sounds unencyclopedic. Here's what Haaretz said:

Haaretz sent the prime minister’s office a series of questions inquiring whether the office was involved in the production of the video in any way. The premier’s office in response did not deny that that the government was involved in the video’s production...

It's no small matter when the office of the chief executive of a country is questioned about whether it participated in the creation of black propaganda, and then doesn't deny doing so. In many countries this would be the kind of thing that could bring down a government, if proved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it brought down the government then it would be significant. If proven to be actually the work of a government agency (unlikely), maybe. At present it doesn't appear to be a significant event that would be remembered 1 month from now. We should be aware of WP:RECENTISM and avoid it. Marokwitz (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

Marokwitz (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be interesting to apply that rigorously and remove everything from the article that comes from sources less than 1 month old and see what we have left. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be an interesting experiment to prevent creation of articles on topics less than 1 month old, this would help prevent Wikipedia from turning into a poorly edited news source, emphasizing controversies over substance. Articles should not be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. Marokwitz (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Some contributors, it would seem, apply a test before including/removing material on this and related articles. Is it favourable to Israel and/or unfavourable to flotilla participants/the population of Gaza? Include/argue for inclusion/retention. Is it unfavourable to Israel and/or favourable to flotilla participants/the population of Gaza? Don't include/argue for deletion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, when coming from someone who added to Wikipedia a list of all "the the crew of the MV Saoirse taking part in Freedom Flotilla", based on an unreliable primary source (the "Irish Ship to Gaza" website) while in fact it has been just announced that MV Saoirse will not take part in the freedom flotilla. Publishing unsubstantiated future speculations is not really helpful for the quality of Wikipedia, and those are a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. I wonder what test you applied before including this material. Marokwitz (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Or imagine if editors had to wait for one month for their revision to become the current revision. The topic area would be transformed. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not having a crystal ball, I didn't know the MV Saoirse would be sabotaged in exactly the same manner as one of the other ships. That information will, of course, be included later today when I have some free time. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea, Sean. I'm not going to edit the article right now because it's currently very active. But here's a much more complete source about the apparent sabotage of vessels in harbor in Greece. There's also a pretty interesting NY Times article about how an Israeli advocacy group has caused Flotilla vessels in Greece to be delayed by interfering with their insurance coverage. Page 2 of this article also documents that, and says that the Greek government appears to be complicit. I think we're probably going to need a section soon to aggregate attempts to stop the Flotilla that aren't overt, e.g. apparent sabotage attempts, attempts like this insurance thing, dubious hasbara efforts like the video that user Unflavoured documented, & etc.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In general in this topic area, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם is often a good way to save yourself time finding sources. Richard Silverstein usually cites a whole host of sources in his articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sean; that's really quite a collection, and I'll bookmark the link. I was especially pleased to learn that "jumping on a mattress while wearing Puma shoes leads inexorably to lesbian sex, twosomes, threesomes and God knows what else". I'd suspected that my wing-tips might not be quite the thing for clubbing, so that's good to know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion went way off-track. Instead of sarcasm and bickering, we could have just checked out the earlier article on the first Gaza flotilla to compare. Israeli officials had circulated a link to a video and then changed their mind and apologized, and that was included in a small line in that article. So if the issue does not progress further, a couple of lines is all that we need to this article. Unflavoured (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened in another article isn't a valid policy based decision procedure so you can forget that approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

hoax was planed to derail this and other discussion. as proved above. patients mill for .il — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

regarding the lead material about Amin Abu Rashid

( Background: At 23:16 30 June 2011 (UTC) Jalapenos do exist added text to the lead based on a seven-sentence 30 June 2011 Jerusalem Post blurb that said it was echoing an as-yet-unidentified 28 June 2011 De Telegraaf ( Dutch ) article that itself apparently echoed allegations made by some unnamed intelligence source of unnamed nationality that claimed Amin Abu Rashid is a senior Hamas member. Jalapenos wrote that the efforts of the 22 NGOs backing the flotilla are "coordinated by senior Hamas member operative Amin Abu Rashid." The Jerusalem Post article also quoted an Israeli public information official "in response" as supporting the accusation, saying "this is not a humanitarian flotilla, but a provocation and a terror operation in disguise of a flotilla." A different user added a cite subsequently to a previous-year 2010 Telegraaf article that likewise echoed accusations made by an unnamed intelligence source. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 02:06, 2 July 2011 UTC )

This material seems a little outlandish. There are two references for this tidbit, the "Jerusalem Post" source and the "telegraaf". Problem is, the JP source points to the "telegraaf" as the source of its information, and the "telegraaf" points to a quote given by "an intelligence source" as its basis for the material. That seems pretty darned weak if you ask me. I'm removing the material. If someone wants it back it will have to be heavily qualified. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

( At 18:43, 1 July 2011 user NickCT deleted the allegation about Rashid. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )

I object to the deletion -- in fact, it a "tidbit" that is properly referenced to an RS. We have a multitude of sentences that are completely un-referenced, in contrast, in the related participants list. Nick -- go ahead and delete all the unreferenced sentences, as well as those referenced to non-RSs. But please don't delete the few sentences referenced to RSs. We should endeavor to avoid what might be seen as POV editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

( One minute after posting the above, and nine minutes after NickCT's removal of the passage about Rashid, Epeefleche restored the disputed text, doing so at 18:52, 1 July 2011. - late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )

It's within scope of BLP so perhaps it should go to the noticeboard. What might be seen as POV editing also includes parroting anonymous partisan sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

( At 19:43, 1 July 2011 Epeefleche created an article on Amin Abu Rishid. Except for one trivial edit, he's its only contributor as I write this; here is its now-current state. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )

@Epeefleche - re " We should endeavor to avoid what might be seen as POV editing" - Out of curiosity, do you keep a straight face while you type this kind of thing or do you smirk sorta perniciously? You haven't really addressed my point, that this material is coming from an unnamed "intelligence source", which can hardly be seen as reliable.

Regardless, I doubt you'll be won over by sense or reason. Sean, if we don't get other editors weighing in here, which noticeboard would you recommend? NickCT (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an RS -- and we rely on RSs to be reliable. They don't always reveal the names of their sources. Furthermore, there are more articles than you indicated, and the statement by the Israeli Minister is attributed to him by name. @Sean -- that's a good idea ... the list of participants (List of participants of Freedom Flotilla II) is rife with unsourced info re BLPs, and info sourced to what are clearly non-RSs, and needs to be culled immediately to un-do the existing manifest BLP violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's a fine line between writing an encyclopedia based on media sources and providing an open comms channel for propaganda and innuendo by flotilla activists and Israeli intelligence. For articles covered by the discretionary sanctions, the fine line should probably be made into a gigantic heavily mined separation berm like the ones in Western Sahara. Nick, I was thinking of WP:BLPN. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Israeli intelligence does appear to have originated the allegation that Rishid is a Hamas fundraising chief, from what I've seen so far. The earliest attempt I'm aware of to portray him so is the 2 June 2010 story in the Dutch-language De Telegraaf that relies only on "an intelligence source" with no further details given. But a story nine days later, published on 11 June 2010 in Hebrew by Yedioth Ahronoth is evidently relying on claims by Israeli intelligence. I don't read Hebrew, and thus haven't been able to find the original Yedioth Ahronoth story, but two same-day "echo" stories − one by sister publication Ynet and another in Italian by l'Occidentale − make the origin of the accusation quite clear.

The paper De Telegraaf, btw, is described in our articles and all across the web as "sensationalistic", the closest thing the Dutch have to a British-style tabloid/redtop. Nor is it encouraging re the author's or paper's impartiality that the subheading of a subsequent story in De Telegraaf, also by Bart Olmer, identifies the joint Dutch/Italian flotilla vessel as "the ship in which Dutch activists seek a confrontation with Israeli marines".

I believe we're all aware of the extent of what the Jerusalem Post ( not to mention Yedioth Ahronoth ) called "the hysteria propaganda" that's coming out of Israel to discredit the flotilla, e.g. the phony video apparently produced by a man who says he's an advisor to Netanyahu, the intelligence claims of "chemical weapons" (sulfur) on board that were first fed to Israeli papers and then ridiculed by them - and by Israeli cabinet ministers - in the following days, & etc. Given such a context, I really think we need to see much broader international media support from highly-credible sources for claims that appear to originate with Israeli intelligence, military, or political sources before we can legitimately state or imply that a living person is a "Hamas operative".

This caveat should of course apply to Epeefleche's new article on Amin Abu Rashid, as well, as I see it. It's my opinion that these accusations shouldn't be anywhere in mainspace right now; we actually belong at the "discuss" stage of WP:BRD concerning this matter, and would be if Epeefleche hadn't instead made a token "I disagree" comment here, immediately reinstated, and then unilaterally created what amounts to a POV fork about Rishid while we were all trying to sort this matter. Those actions seem very unnecessarily aggressive to me, especially where so potentially damaging an accusation is being made in such a hurry about a living person. I'm not sure that AE wouldn't be the right forum to bring this to, actually.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

note - until it is discussed and agreed I have removed the disputed from both articles. Personally I don't support is as I saw it presented. I would be interested in reading any quotes from him about the accusation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone supporting this flotilla?

Is anyone other than the organizers and participants supporting this flotilla? It's only a semi-serious question, but the way the article (particularly the reactions section) reads now the entire world is against the flotilla except for Hamas and Mairead Maguire.

Is that pretty much the truth of things?

Or is there somehow that we can get better, the appropriate amount, of balance in that section?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)