Talk:Gaza flotilla raid: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TFOWR (talk | contribs)
27,123 edits
Reverted good faith edits by Homunq; In think this is justified because it's advising up to be aware of issues that may affect the article. (TW)
Line 1,154: Line 1,154:


==Changing story==
==Changing story==
{{hidden| Comment hidden because [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] and [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] |I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against [[WP:SYNTH]], but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)|headerstyle=background:#ccccff|bodystyle=text-align:center}}
I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against [[WP:SYNTH]], but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:03, 4 June 2010

Israelis always first?

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

Alphabetical order? "I" comes before "P" so Israel comes before Palestinians. Are you against alphabeticalorderism? :P 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Despite the joke answer this is a good question. It does seem like the argument for the Gaza flotilla raid viewpoint is mentioned first most of the time followed by the opposing view giving the impression that the first view point is the correct one so I have two questions.

1. Is there a wiki policy regarding opposing views and which order they come in? 2. If this article is NPOV then why does the pro raid view point come first? ( I realize that if there is a wiki policy regarding this then it negates my second question) Tcla75 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both opinions should be listed first :). In any case, one side is given the "last word" while the other side is always "listed first", what's better? I'm not so sure... Marokwitz (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be included in the section on passengers? 50 mercenaries seemed to have been on board the ship

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452 The IDF identified a group of about 50 men – of the 700 on board – who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, mostly on the upper deck, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers who rappelled onto the deck from helicopters.

The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each of them had an envelope in his pocket with about $10,000 in cash. The defense establishment suspects the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.191.50 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Change to make

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

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

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

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

Translators Required

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

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


Hebrew

he:המשט לעזה (2010)

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

I can try to translate some of these tomorrow. Do you want me to post the text here? RolandR (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. However, I am not a registered Wikipedia user. Is this ok? 87.69.208.92 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Just post your translations here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we appear to have opposing points of view, this could be very useful; if you accept my translations, or I yours, then this could remove any suggestion of partial or biased translation. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't care noone's views anyway. Opposing or not, in my approach we should clearly represent both sides views for NPOV. You may translate fully or partially where you feel important. As long as the translations are intact, they are helpful. I just listed some links, Ynet is not the greatest source, but if you find better info not available in English feel free to add more sources. After you translate, post here, so other Hebrew speaking users may control the accuracy of translations or use in article. Thanks for the efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Turkish

Israel did not allow healing the wounded!

tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı 

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


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

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

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

The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid

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

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

Greek

el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας

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

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

Recurring topics

yellow

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separating 'Legal' section

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

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

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

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

  • support - but people need to be aware of WP:GEVAL when it comes to anything including legal opinions and abide by it. It's a mandatory part of NPOV compliance that seems to get forgotten about in I-P conflict related articles. We don't give equal validity to minority and majority views i.e. editors shouldn't create a false balance of opinions. The relative weight should reflect the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Although references should reflect sources, I believe the future article (if it is made) would be better off by breaking down the main arguments (since there are many views) and then citing sources who support it.
  • Oppose I think it requires more than a single paragraph on the main page. There have been a few good articles recently on the legal issues in WP:RS, including the Christian Science Monitor and Slate. They identify the 2 critical issues as (1) Was the Gaza embargo legal in the first place and (2) Was it legal to stop the ships. We would be better off to summarize those articles, in a few paragraphs. The current section in "Legal opinions opposing the action" lists a long miscellany of names of scholars who are opposed without explaining why they're opposed. Many of the citations aren't in English, so most of us can't verify them. Moving that whole confused "Legal observations and opinions" to a separate article will just result in a confused article. --Nbauman (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Nbauman. Furthermore I think there is no need to mention legal "opinions" as "Professor A thinks it was legal, Professor B thinks it was illegal", since that is of no encyclopedic interest, rather focus on well argumented pro- and con- legal arguments based on specific treaties and international laws. Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is such a large amount of material out there, that can't be summarised in a small section. A separate article will do.--yousaf465' 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is already fragmented in multiple pieces and hard to follow and understand. --Nevit (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not good to left over framed skeleton. Some stuffing is ok. Do not cut it of since this is informative. Unless the goal is disinformation (is it?) if is it then anyway oppose at lest for now. After investigation, judgment and prosecution it may be however separated since it will grow. What should left is the size of now. Ai 00 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A split is needed because the article is getting WP:TOOLONG. A clear case according to policy. --Kslotte (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kslotte is right, the page is getting too long. I also agree with Nbauman though, we need a better synthesis, not just a shorter one. Lampman (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could see spinning it in working. One thing I noticed is that a good portion of the legal opinions say the same thing. It looks like editors are finding sources and just slapping them in. I would recommend consolidating anything to do with the Law of the Sea and intl waters into a single paragraph and simply using "some experts/scolars/whatever" instead of individual paragraphs for each headline found when a local paper sought comment from whatever professor they could get a hold of on the phone.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If we go with the "some experts" approach, then I think it's important to provide reference links to each of the most notable experts' views, if not list the experts outright. Given the politically charged atmosphere, precisely "who" these experts are becomes highly relevant. For example, one expert cited in the article has also suggested that Hammas should increase their rocket attacks on Israel, assuming they are indeed in a state of armed conflict. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Since suggesting the split because the section was too long it has at least doubled in size. It either needs to be drastically cut down or moved. WP:TOOLONG Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above, the article is already chopped all over the place. I think it belongs on this page and only on this page. We don't need a massive tree out of one article. The few branches we have are just fine. Teafico (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Maily because I think that the facts (in this article) should be separate from the opinions (in ths legal section). ShalomOlam (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map, take 2

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Would anyone else support asking for WP:Third_opinion?

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

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

However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)

Actually, the article says this:

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

Clearly, from the context, "it" is the raid (Israeli, since the protesters didn't "raid" per se).
Hence UK would be red.Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bless, I think you just proved my point about OR. The only bit of the article referring to what Cameron said, that was actually in quotes(""), was "completely unacceptable". So you are making a judgment as to what was being condemned.
A good visual can undoubtedly improve a reader's understanding of an article. But in this case the map seems to add very little, and in fact much of what it does add seems to be confusion ... thus the incredibly long debate about it. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
England is colored red? ;-) These ... countries ... would ... like to remind you about where their foreign policy comes from ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • First a wiki editor creates sets, 'states that X', 'states that not X'.
  • They then have to create set inclusion decision procedures to identify whether a state belongs in the X or not X set. These first 2 steps are already highly problematic because it's an information classification system that doesn't come from a reliable source, it's opaque, non-deterministic and non-repeatable.
  • Once they have their opaque and personal decision procedures to decide whether something is in the X or not X set they have to find the input to that decision procedure, the RS. But which RS do you pick ? There will be many sources that make statements about what a country said about it. And which statement do you pick ? How do you know you haven't missed something ? How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements in a natural language into 'states that X' and 'states that not X' set memberships in a policy compliant way avoiding original research and synthesis ? It isn't possible. We're treating it like it's as easy as classifying integers into sets of odds and evens. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating sets can not a problem, nor a violation of WP:NOR. Populating these sets is where problems can potentially arise.
  • In almost all cases, either the official (the primary source), or a reliable news article (the secondary source), uses the word "condemn". I don't think its a stretch, when we clearly have a source saying "Y condemned Z", to classify Y as having condemned Z.
  • A couple other countries, don't use the word "condemn", but call Israeli actions "unacceptable". Do you think that constitutes as "protesting" Israeli actions?
  • You pick the RS and statement that's most relevant. If you have an RS that says "Y condemns Z", then you take it. If another RS doesn't say "Y condemns Z", then its likely incomplete for a number of potential reasons (brevity, date published, angle it covers etc.). "How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements." Because almost all of these statements contain, very explicitly, the term "condemn" (either in the original, or in the interpretation by a reliable source). If they do not, we can either take those countries off, or find other ways to include them.Bless sins (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've suggested that this map also be temporarily removed from the Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid page until a consensus is reached either via the talk pages, RFC, or Third Opinion. That suggestion can be found here in the talk page for the Reactions article. --- Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Zuchini, I should have given you a heads up on the RfC process. Looks like this has the potential to bog down with so many involved editors chiming in. Just to do it myself, I would like to second "The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified." and the idea of TEMPORARILY removing it until it is straightned out. It might be fixable but may not be. Best out of the main space for now at the very least.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In full disclosure I took a look at this map to see how it compares to the one at Gaza War because Sean mentioned to me that there's a similar discussion going on here. I thought I'd share my thoughts. This one is actually a bit better than Gaza War. Although that is mostly because the information is rendered in a less useful way: the red category trumps the blue one. But ulitmately this map has the same failings as the one at Gaza War. We make statements that our knowledge is exhaustive when it is really very limited. I only bothered to write this at all because I happened to notice the odd case of Gabon. The little I know about the country along with my general knowledge about West African politics, Israeli foreign affairs, UN politics, etc. made me think the country was unlikely to be Blue. So I checked the source. It is a discussion of the UNSC meeting from a relatively small Oregon paper.[1] It would be fair to categorize the Gabonaise ambassador's printed statement as Blue. But since the minutes of UNSC meetings are so easily available, I actually looked at them.[2] They include this portion of the statment which was not included in the Salem paper: "This new violence is unacceptable under international law and has already revived tensions that put at risk the indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis that had started three weeks ago. Along with the rest of the international community, my delegation firmly condemns these attacks, which are a hindrance to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." In light of that, Gabon should be Red.

I think that illuminates the problem. We suggest that we have exhaustive knowledge of Gabon's diplomatic activites when we don't even have full knowledge of the one three-paragraph statement that we've relied upon. In order to colour any country Blue, we would need complete certainty that it never made a Red statement (absent an RS). If we can't even tell if Japan has said anything we shouldn't assume that we know everything that Poland has said. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a very good point, and I acknowledge my mistake with respect to Gabon. By extension, you may ask, how do we know I haven't made a mistake on other blue countries as well?
Often, media (reliable sources) note not only reactions, but also lack thereof. For example, Canadian and American reactions' lack of "rush to judgement" (a condemnation is a judgment) is contrasted here with other countries' condemnation. So in this case, when a reliable source notes the absence of something, I think we can safely too.
What about Poland and the Vatican city? We would have to find similar sources, or remove them.Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Huh ? Did someone respond to the very serious original research/synthesis problems that were raised above ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a lot of support for the map, but I concede there is not yet consensus.
I am disappointed in the attitude of some users. Their attitude is that the map inherently has problems and therefore can't be included under any circumstances. Whereas a more productive attitude would be: the map currently has problems, but we can fix them through discussion.Bless sins (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, while some blue nations maybe ought to be red, some red nations likely ought to be blue if more information was known. In regard to Gabon, they said "my delegation firmly condemns these attacks", yet it isn't clearly what is exactly meant - perhaps the attack against the blockade, i.e. condemning the flotilla, or condemning the media attacks, or condemning the attacks by other nations which condemned Israel without more information first. It isn't clear. I would refer to the source, but it doesn't contain the information it is attested to hold.
Bless sins, no, I don't believe such a map may be made. In similar matters where nations have condemned Israel they have often ended up embarrassed when startlingly obvious evidence to the contrary has arisen (i.e. the Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident). As such, many use specifically vague terminology, and allow the listeners to interpret it however they want to. So unless you know a manner to make a relevant politician from all of those nations make a frank statement on their position, it seems doomed to failure. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, by condemns Gabon clearly meant aggression toward the people on-board the ships. That is something understood clearly.--yousaf465' 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, without context I don't know what attacks are being condmned for sure, and despite your strong belief, you can't be sure either. Since the other 5 ships in the flotilla didn't attack the Israelis, nor have previous flotillas which were detained similarly, it could very easily refer to the attacks against the soldiers. I can't get context because that link it's supposed to be quoted from is not a good link. In reality, we currently have no source using that quote at all. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned somewhere else on this talk page, it looks like there are examples of taking quotes from sources that are not the official state position. Then others are just vague. So I doubt anyone disagrees that some work is needed. Is anyone working on verifying every source someone put in and updating it if needed?Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the map could be useful. If finding the position of a few countries are controversial, those specific instances can be discussed first here; no reason to throw the whole thing away because of a few instances. The map is as informative as a map can be. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Discussion Organized

Sources Against IHH/Organisators

Activist or passenger

Weapons

Casualties

Passenger Accounts

Activists
Crew
Journalists
Politicians
Religious people

Israel Accounts

IDF

Israel views

Goverment
IDF
Media
People

Turkish views

Government
Media
People
Religious

International views

Maritime and International Law

Terms

See also

Video Footage

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

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

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

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

Whose blockade is this anyway? Requesting third opinion

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

In June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after winning local elections, Israel and Egypt sealed their borders with Gaza. The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. Egypt closed its borders saying it did not recognise the authority of Hamas in Gaza.[1] In September 2007, following rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements, Israel declared Gaza strip a "hostile territory" and tightened its blockade [2]. Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza[3]. These, along with the control of Gaza's airspace by Israel, resulted in a complete blockade of Gaza. The United Nations and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the blockade by Israel, calling it collective punishment of the Palestinian people, as it restricts the flow of materials for basic needs and for reconstruction of infrastructure and homes that were either destroyed, or severely damaged by Israel, in the Gaza War.[4][5]

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

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

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

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

In short, call a spade a spade.

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

Walky-talky you have done a good and objective work. Some users may criticize specific points according to their affiliations that is not my point. It seems to be too long for me. But how can one balance such a complicated matter without omittance of major issues? Perhaps a short list without going into details will suffice. The rest can be read from main article. --Nevit (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the most NPOV way to do this would be to "Gaza Blockade" without any country names and have it link to the article on the Blockade so that people can get all the information there. This article should not be the place where we discuss questions about the nature of the blockade. That should be done in the blockade article. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is simple and short. Wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context. We are here to report what the main stream reliable sources say. Calling a a spade a spade is not POV. Some editors seem to have some objection to this usage; but that's how the media report; the UN says; the FGM says; Isreal says. We just need to follow it. I am not saying we should give all the details of the blockade. But it can be summarised ( even mentioning the role of Egypt) in 3-4 sentences to make it absolutely NPOV. Look at the Background section now; it gives as much details as possible ( even the rocket attacks) except mentioning the blockade declared by Israel and avoiding the term Israel while mentioning the UN criticism ( though it is unambiguously a criticism of Israeli blockade). Please compare it with my reverted version.Walky-talky (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has produced multiple reliable sources to say that "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza.", referring to Egypt and Israel. The reference given there talks about the military and naval blockade imposed by Israel. Hence I am modifying the sentence accordingly. Also there is no relevance for "Arab foreign ministers have also presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas" in this section. It has nothing to do with Flotilla raid or the blockade they were trying to break.Walky-talky (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on IDF footage

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

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

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

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

Why can't we just say 'The IDF released this snapshot which it says "..."' or 'Source X reported ""'. This would make it much harder for there to be any dispute.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Nosfartu said. Neatly sidesteps dispute. This solution works with WP:PRIMARY sources from the flotilla, too. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do reliable secondary sources not connected to the IDF, the MFA or to the Israel-Palestine conflict describe this image e.g. BBC, China Daily, whatever ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Sean.hoyland said. Even better suggestion. If WP:SECONDARY sources have published the image we should use them instead. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I believe the BBC discusses the video the image is from here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen most news outlets have just linked to or embedded the Youtube video. That's part of why I want an explicit caption; what's happening is much more clear in the video than in the image. I think "published by the IDF" is adequate qualification for NPOV.  —Rafi  16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the [BBC, the Christian Science Monitor embeds the video here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: If necessary, directly quote one of the sources to come up with an objective caption.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists attacking a soldier who just landed on the deck." That's how the CSM you cited describes it.  —Rafi  17:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading this and wanted to point out WP:PRIMARY says to not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source, because any interpretation of any primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. These are quotes from the article:
  • The Christian Science Monitor wrote "this grainy, black-and-white footage shows Israeli commandos getting attacked in what the Foreign Ministry calls "life-threatening and violent activity." "
  • The Christian Science Monitor reported "pro-Israel activists, meanwhile, say Israeli commandos were attacked by pro-Palestinian activists armed with slingshots, knives, and metal bars as the commandos rappelled from helicopters down onto the Mavi Marmara"
  • The Christian Science Monitor quoted Ms. Yedidia of the Israeli consulate as saying "they were there to provoke Israeli forces".
--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to "shows Israeli commandos getting attacked." I don't think my caption proposal contains anything "interpretive" or "synthetic" regarding the image in question.  —Rafi  17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with quoting Ms. Yedida of the Israeli consulate, or the other proposals?--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's interpretive. Someone could put 'people acting in self defense against an armed assault by soldiers on their boat' and it would be no better or worse a description if it were attributed to the people who think that is what it shows. We should keep these things simple, neutral, RS based and make absolutely sure we aren't promoting a specific interpretation/narrative and excluding others if there are conflicting views. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's go back to "beating" rather than "attacking." That's the most objective description I can think of. I got "attacking" from CSM.
To 70.236.71.25: The image's caption should also be concise and describe the image precisely. Do you have a specific proposal that would accomplish this?  —Rafi  17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The BBC caption on a similar image, in the set of images in the link above says "The Israelis say their soldiers were set upon and beaten with bats, chairs and metal poles as soon as they boarded the Mavi Marmara. Activists say the soldiers attacked them first." i.e. they present both narratives. The BBC also use a caption that says something as simple as 'showing the violence on board the flotilla' i.e. ignoring both narratives. The NYT example you posted seems to also take the second approach, no narratives. I don't know which is the best approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either approach seems good to me, but ignoring both narratives may be easier in small spacial constraints.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this image is in the Israel's account section; NPOV still applies, of course, but the basis for having the image is the video's importance to the Israeli account. I still argue that "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists hitting/beating/attacking a fallen soldier on the deck" is a fair description of what the image shows and where it came from.  —Rafi  18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fair to me, also. And after looking at the video, it's hard to fault the term "attacking". Too much waffling in the description--as in "Israeli's say"--seems intended to undermine credibility and is not NPOV.Hickorybark (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: Enumerate some specific proposals from sources and then have a strawpoll.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"the army who has committed the massacre" is hardly neutral language, Severino.Hickorybark (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

 —Rafi  20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

<- I see there is more edit warring over this caption despite there being a 1RR restriction, discretionary sanctions and a talk page section to discuss the caption... I think some users are kind of losing sight of what we are doing here. The images we use should illustrate the important aspects of this event. What were the important aspects of this event ? Nine people being killed, 60-ish people on the boats being injured, some seriously, and 10 soldiers being injured springs to mind given its prominence in RS. That's what we are supposed to be illustrating, all of those things, not just one of them. We aren't here to facilitate the transmission of specific narratives and focus only on imagery that has been specifically selected for exactly that purpose by an interested party. Can I appeal to editors to try to step out of their partisan camps and work towards a balanced illustration of what happened both in terms of imagery and the associated RS based captions ? These edit wars/NPOV non-compliance issues are kind of lame. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other images available? You gotta work with what you have Sean... Posting a neutral description of what you have is good enough for me, because it describes something without giving a POV. If you feel the caption has specifically been selected then just point out the images come from the IDF and let the readers know. Do the best with what you have. The best way to be balanced is to not think about the sides and just write the facts (i.e. this MEDIA provided by SOURCE shows X). I Approve what Rafi wrote. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death(s)

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

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

Soldiers Made Sure None Survived

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

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

I believe this should be included in article.

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

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


From the article you referenced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pro-Palestinian(?) activists

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

I suggested all attributions relating the group to a religion or race be removed. See discussions above. The group itself defines the motion as humanitarian. The term pro-Palestinian is deliberately introduce to discredit the group. --Nevit (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you see above, it was a provocative action against Israel, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians" (Greta Berlin, organiser) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means that they support Palestinian position over Israeli position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree w/ Nevit. Agree w/ Shalom. I think pro-Palestinian is 1) Clear to anyone who has even the slightlest understanding of I/P issues, 2) accurate, 3) Hard to contrue as an attempt to "discredit the group". NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a propaganda method. IDF earlier attributed the activists to Al-Qaeda etc. etc. But withdraw later. Humanitarian is what the group defines itself. If you do not agree on Humanitarian it is better to leave name without a attribution.
    This is not a propaganda method. The flotilla may define themself as "Humanitarian" but that is not true. It's a sham. Pro-Palestinian is not accusatory. It declares their mentality, their actual purpose (ie. helping Palestinians) without judging them. 95.86.93.70 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)The Real Deal[reply]

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

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

Frankly I would agree with both "Humanitarian" and "ProPalestinian". Could I propose, "663 pro-Palestinian, humanitarian activists,[6] as well as journalists and dignitaries from 37 nations,[7] known collectively as the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it without any attribution and just making a link to their respective page. There are pro-Israeli views that believe they had missions other than Humanitarian aid. They will object to humanitarian. The topic can be elaborated there. --Nevit (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They DID have other missions other than Humanitarian aid. They said so themselves: they wanted to break the blockade of Gaza. In many people's POV, breaking blockades is an act of war, not of a humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humanitarian is accurate. Some may (some or many of them) also have been pro-Palestinian. Remove pro-Palestinian please. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Gaza refused to receive the flotilla's cargo from Israel, there is doubt that the cargo was in fact needed as humanitarian aid in Gaza. So maybe instead of writing that they were humanitarian, it's more neutral to write that THEY claim they are humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we go directly to the source? Here is how they describe themselves. And please go to the source to read the full page.
"...bringing in international witnesses to see first hand the devastating effects of Israeli violence against the Palestinian people ... We want to break the siege of Gaza. We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation. We want to uphold Palestine's right to ..." http://www.freegaza.org/en/about-us/mission
Is there any real question that they are "pro-Palestinian activists? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were also journalists and humanitarians on board where weren't necessarily pro-Palestinian. My thought is that when speaking specifically about the activists pro-Palestinian might be OK ... but in blanket statements about the passengers it implies a bias that might not be present with everyone. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence is wrong. The cited source (the Associated Press) says: HAIFA, Israel — Hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists... There's no sign of "663" anywhere in the source. I think we need to be careful to make clear that not all the passengers were necessarily "pro-Palestinian". There were journalists and parliamentarians on board, too. Incidentally, I think in this context it's fine to say "activist" - it was the (pro-Palestinian) activists who intended to go through the blockade; the other passengers were aboard for their own reasons. Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TFWOR. The problem here is that there were so many different people on the boat for different reasons that it does not make sense to lump them all into one group. There is an entire article devoted to the people on board the flotilla. The lead should remain as neutral as possible and not make any factual assumptions. This has been discussed repeatedly Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F, here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Use_of_the_word_.22activist.28s.29.22, and elsewhere. The terminology of Pro-Palestinian and Activist may be OK, but the problem is lumping everybody into specific groups. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

According to this link, a Hamas leader is confirmed among the "activists". The article refers to him as "the leader of the Hamas terrorist network in the Netherlands". 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting using an Arutz Sheva source for this kind of info ? I assume you're joking. If it's true it will be available in multiple high quality RS in the international media. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sloppy journalism, and we copied them ;-) I've fixed the text and added a cite for "northern Cyprus". TFOWRidle vapourings 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Famagusta[3][4] --JGGardiner (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're both for Challenger I, not II (though I believe both I and II went to the same place). Incidentally, I left the old ("Nicosia") source in place, as it was named and I didn't want to break any other uses of it... if any kind editor could see their way to rectifying that, I'd be ever so obliged ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that. I definitely went looking for Challenger I. I'm not sure why I made that mistake. Perhaps because the businessday article just says "Challenger". As for C2, according to this they went to Limassol.[5] --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre refs

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

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


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

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

There were not civilians are they have taken war action by trying to break military blockade also they were armed so they couldn't be considered civilians.Shrike (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were civilians (i.e. not soldiers) and they were nowhere near the blockade (which in itself is illegal) and they weren't armed. If there was any actual weapons (other than ordinary cutlery and common tools) I'm quite sure the IDF would have shown them by now. // Liftarn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is going back to the old argument of what do you call a group of armed people going into battle who don't have a uniform or represent an actual nation? Civilians, maybe technically, soldiers, also technically, they really fall somewhere in between - English likley lacks a word to properly describe such people. Also, going toward a bloackade with the stated intention of breaking it (whether you a gree with the blockade or not) is generally considered legal under international maritime law, read the section in the article about it. Also, read in the article about the soliders with bullet holes in their bodies...
Either way, this isn't a forum for discussion about the issue, it's about writing an article about it in as NPOV a manner as possible, please keep comments to that effect. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Anyone interested in how the Supreme Count of Israel classifies people, including terrorists, as civilians and distinguishs between different sets->legal obligations on the basis of whether they are or are not engaged in hostilities can go look at the many rulings on their site that deal with this issue in detail. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falk

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

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

MV Mavi Marmara

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

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

Does this belong in the Israel Military Accounts section?

The Foreign Press Association, which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and the Palestinian territories, has complained the Israeli military seized video and equipment from dozens of reporters on board the main ship. The FPA says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. FPA also criticized Israel's use of captured material without permission.[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are separate places for the accounts of flotilla passengers and the Israeli military precisely because both sides disagree on the events. At best a shortened version of this might be OK for the flotilla passengers section. But it is a reaction from an international body, not a direct account. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part in the flotilla passengers section is not enough, it doesn't explain that Israel is cherry picking the videos. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that says Israel is cherry picking the videos? Or is that your own bias? If you've got a source, then we should mention it along with the videos so readers know the videos are one-sided. Without a reliable source, it's also reasonable some may believe that Israel has hours worth of video from multiple angles that show very little of interest and that they've simply edited it down to more succinctly tell the story. Picking one side or the other without a reliable source would be just unbearable POV. Rklawton (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme, I think you make a good point about the accusation of cherry picking videos. I'm not suggesting that you remove the accusation, just that it be placed in a more appropriate section. Here is the wording I would suggest:
The Foreign Press Association says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. [7]
That could go into the flotilla accounts section. Sound good?
I still think it should be right after the: "The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident" in the Israeli section ,its better that way for people reading the article instead of spreading it over several sections. He who reads the Israeli section might not read the other section, so he wont get the full picture. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to Rklawton, the reference that Supreme provided does is from the AP, a very RS and it suggests that Israel is cherry picking. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the source above. It's the AP (reliable) citing FPA claims. But it's really important to note the FPA isn't neutral in this matter. So it's important to differentiate between claims made by a neutral press and a neutral press quoting a non-neutral organization's claims. Rklawton (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about quoting the FPA, Rklawton. I don't know much about them as a group though. Are they not considered an RS? Zuchinni one (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it is presented as from the "FPA" there is no problem, reliable or not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:V Checks

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

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

In the "Legal Analysis" section:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Neutrality plea

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

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

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

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

we also don't need to rely on sources sympathetic to IDF and their international supporters (or hostile to palestinians and humanitarian activists).--Severino (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On point number 3 above, a news report stated that international law stipulates that a party can take action even before a vessel enters a blockaded area if the vessel is unwilling to change to a suggested course and the intention to enter the blockaded area is unquestioned. Therefore you can take action even miles before they enter, even if they're in international waters. The previous comment was taken from a news report condemning the raid, so i don't think is biased. I found this too... it might be biased or done with legalese in mind, but it might be useful. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some neutral conclusions:
  1. It is not certain if the blockade is legal or not (if it was - this means the flotilla was not legal).
  2. It is not certain if the raid was legal or not, since it was done in international waters.
  3. It is not certain if the flotilla's humanitarian aid was in fact needed in Gaza (since humanitarian aid are shipped regularly to Gaza by land).
  4. It is not certain if some of the flotilla participants attacked Israeli soldiers before any firearm was used.

ShalomOlam (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gaza flotilla takeover

would be a better name.

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

Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (with that ugly spelling)

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

Even experts are wrong sometimes

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

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

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

Well, correct. The ship WASN'T Turkish-flagged, it was Comoros-flagged. Wouldn't this mean Comoros itself could be at war with Israel? Of course, the whole statement is wrong because the MV Mari Marmara wasn't Turkish-flagged, so shouldn't we get rid of it? Being irrelevant thanks to misinformation. Teafico (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was thinking about trying to modify it based on the flagging but that ran int OR problems. When it comes down to it the section is bloated and it really is a legal opinion that doesn't improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick trip over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Rachel_Corrie told me that the people working on her article aren't even sure who's flag she's actually flying, as it appears to have been a quick change with little note. Funny how it can change the entire course of this event. I guess it's best if we let it sit for now. Teafico (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Different vessel and that was simply an editor who assumed and did not read the sources.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, the MV Rachel Corrie just happened to be open in my browser and I copied over the wrong link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Mavi_Marmara It still appears they don't know. Comoros or Turkey. Teafico (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh easy mistake. They are having another discussion over there. Funny enough, they are relying on Free Gaza who I tend to not trust as RS. Also, the guy who had the legal opinion later made another one discussing the reflagging when he realized. He did say: "None of this masks the illegality of Israel attacking a ship under any foregin flag in international waters. But bluntly, it was a stupid decision in practice by the protestors to set sail in a Comoros flagged ship." That doesn't invalidate his previous opinion but it simply is more space to an opinion that is questionable at best. Maybe if tons of RS pick up on his opinion it will be important enough to include.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose we just sit and wait for new info to appear. It looks Comoros flagged, and I figure it is. Teafico (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't get it: regardless of being Turkish-flagged or Comoros-flagged, the contribution of Murray is still useful, right? I mean, I don't see any other paragraph in the legal section addressing the same issue. It could be summarised and paraphrased in order to be included. --Samer.hc (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it carries more wait with Turkey being the flagged nation. I'm not sure Comoros would take any action. Hell, I hadn't even heard of Comoros until I learned this ship was flying her flag. Regardless, it can still be regarded as an "act of war" no matter the nation attacked, so I think we could summarize it. It's good info, the expert was just wrong because he was given misinformation. Granted, we still need the info. Teafico (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Many sources say the ship was Turkish-flagged. In any case I don't see how the flag is relevant to Murray's view that the attack was illegal. We can add a sentence after Murray's opinion to the effect that some reports have said the vessel was flying a Comoros flag. Turkey summoned Nato after the attack, so Turkey appears to be under the impression it was Turkish-flagged. --Dailycare (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray wrote a follow-up piece in which he addresses the problem of the flag. I recommend the previous passage to be reinstated with a note regarding the flag issue, as it's one of the most informative quotes about the legal implications of the attack. As Samer.hc notes, Murray's point is interesting not because of the nationality of the ship, but because of the two alternative legal options that he presents, which remain valid regardless of the flag of the ship. This is an issue that other commentators didn't bring up and that needs IMO to be reinstated. DarTar (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus

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

I'm not sure a NPOV is appropriate for Cyprus as it relates to the Gaza flotilla raid. The only thing that makes sense to is have separate section within this article to cover, in extreme detail, the entire history of the Turkey/Greece Cyprus dispute going back to the time when the continents were joined and Cyprus was part of a larger landmass. We will also need all relevant opinions of the Cypriot dispute as voiced by the passengers of the flotilla and the people who read about the incident in their local newspapers. Additionally will probably need thousands of good RS as well as links to all relevant Onion articles that covered this topic. It will be a lot of work ... but absolutely worth the effort. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is quite cumbersome. One valid reason to have a more detailed reference here would be that "Northern Cyprus" is placed in direct contrast with "the government of Cyprus" in the sentence. A reader unaware of the situation, but puzzled why the ships could not sail from "Cyprus" but were able to leave from "Northern Cyprus" can follow the link as you say, but we can also save him some time reading the lead of that article with a small explanatory addition like "Turkish-controlled" (or something similar) in front of Northern Cyprus. Or maybe a rephrasal like "embarked instead from Famagusta, in the Turkish-Cypriot[s'] part of the island". In any case, simplicity prevails over detailed formalisms.--GroGaBa (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Northern Cyprus" with a link should suffice + definitely support campaign for The Onion to become an RS in Wikipedia. It's overdue and about as reliable as most op-eds by notable experts that are used in Wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that simplicity should prevail over detailed formalisms. Anyway, "Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus" sounds like a good alternative to my ears. Letus (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too Long Rule of Thumb - What should we split?

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

"A rule of thumb

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind that it is readable prose which is much less than what the history page counts up. I agree that some things need to be trimmed but it is not yet technically a problem under the length standards but weight.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legal speculation sections should be per vote above. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) [reply]
ARGH. Damn sinebot. That section can be halved easily.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so this does not get archived: The article is a little long and has a weight tag. Any thoughts on how to fix it anyone?Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning of Raid

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

The article is there in the image. There is just one paragraph discussing the possibility of use of force, the one in the bottom-right corner headed "שלב 2: ההשתלטות" in red and black, based on a brief quote from an unnamed officer. Most of the article discusses the logistics of what Israel would do with the ships and passengers once they fell under Israeli control. The paragraph heads translate as follows: "Stage 1: warning," "Stage 2: takeover," "Stage 3: deportation," "Stage 4: custody," and "Stage 5: security check." If anything this article substantiates that the Israeli authorities expected the initial confrontation to go smoothly and to have mostly red tape to worry about after the ships were apprehended.  &#151;Rafi  04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a bit might have been cut off. Blumenthal translates the title and caption as:
Title: Head to Head in the Heart of the Sea
Caption: On the way to violence; one of the boats is on its way.
"On the way to violence" does not sound like they were sure things would go smoothly. While Blumenthal may overemphasize some things, the Ma'ariv article does seem to indicate planning for violence: "If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force." His question, asked by many others, and which should be explored in the article: why were previously used more peaceful tactics - not boarding - not used this time, underlines this. His opinion is that the plan chosen "made the killing of activists likely, if not inevitable."John Z (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change in the lead: Supplies withheld by Israel

On the article's lead it reads:

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

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


I have previously requested that the user who made this edit remove it and given my reasoning as follows:
Your recent edits to the lead are a good example of WP:Synth Check this link you provided in regards to 4/5 of the aid not being delivered. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/hamas-flotilla-aid-israel
The article only says "The flotilla was thought to be carrying about 8,000 tons of cement and other materials which have been barred by Israel since it tightened its blockade on the Gaza Strip three years ago."
Your edit asserting that the vast majority of cargo will not be delivered is clearly WP:Synth.
Please reverse this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365944150&oldid=365943554
Zuchinni one (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SHip cargo is measured by its weight. So its still a fair assessment. You could say something like 'the majority of the gross weight of the cargo' but I still think its acceptable how it is. ValenShephard 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
It is obvious that "vast majority" means "by weight" if 8,000 out of 10,000 tons is said next. Any other interpretation is absurd.John Z (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, considering how diverse the cargo transported by the flotilla is, I believe the wording should be changed so that the distinction between the withheld weight and the withheld parcels can be easily made by the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.134.239 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, getting in building materials (and other banned materials) was the point of the flotilla, because they were aware most of the other items could come in legally, they wouldnt have bothered otherwise (not taking into account the publicity question). From their own view, the cement and building materals are the most important cargo, even if they werent the largest weight or some such. So if you are talking about the relatice importance of each cargo, this needs to be taken into account. ValenShephard 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Valen, I think you're missing the point. Currently there is no information about how much of what existed in the cargo except for conjecture. So whose conjecture was it? What was their reasoning for it? Are they are reliable source? Unless we have facts, not guesses, this should be removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why it says thought to and another similar term which someone added. Its not conjecture, it is what a major newspaper has unearthed, their evidence and the facts they have available point to it being cement and building materials. Thats why they said thought to and we said thought to. Why dont you suggest other wording? If its acceptable to both, i'll happily change it. Also note the support I got a few comments above. ValenShephard 03:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, even if this is confirmed ... which is certainly possible, it would be more appropriate to leave it in the "Fate of Cargo" section Zuchinni one (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. This is critical information to get a better view of the incident. I dont think its an issue, its not controversial at all. ValenShephard 03:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I think it should be in the heading, as a purpose of the flotilla (one way or another) was to deliver cargo, yeah? Teafico (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valen ... please see this ref in the "fate of cargo" section where Israel claims that NONE of the cargo was banned and has allowed all of it in. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177165 The bottom line is that this is unclear. I am going to remove it from the lead. However I think it is reasonable for you to give both perspectives on the fate of the cargo in the "Fate of the Cargo" section. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that Jpost article, near the bottom, reads: "The illegal construction materials were removed from the ships and will be held by us awaiting further instructions.”". The cargo is being held, then, isn't it? Teafico (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Guardian source, while the origina anon verbal objection is based on an absurd reading of the text, the Guardian does not seem to support the text sufficiently. I believe most of the cement is on the freighter Rachel Corrie, still under way.John Z (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following, if I may:

"A total of 8.000 tons of supplies (out of the 10,000 total) are thought to have been witheld by Israeli authorities and not offered to Gaza, the majority of those being cement and other building materials."

I believe that this makes it clearer for the reader, but that's obviously my opinion. Please excuse any grammar errors, typos.--85.139.134.239 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please limit changes in the article regarding this topic to the "Fate of the Cargo" section until there is clear evidence of exactly what is going on. The Lead is not a good place to put disputed facts. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the new lead, it's open to interpretation. We'll find out the facts later and maybe re-add them to the lead. Teafico (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or not, someone reverted it back. I'll have to look at the history and see, but I liked the statement that included "not delivering all aid and freeing the activists/passengers." Teafico (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor that added that statement about the cargo and its tonnage. Can we please defend it against being deleted, because its been compromised heavily since I originally put it there, and its properly sources.--ValenShephard 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I was probably one of the people that edited it, I know I added something about WHY the cargo was being held, "8/10 tons presumably being construction materials" or something. But that was before I even found this debate going on in the talk page. Teafico (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If and when the facts of the aid delivery cease to be in dispute this MIGHT be OK to put in the Lead. Currently there are at least 2 RS that offer completely different stories.
Zuchinni one (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still reads, uhm:
"“We are currently liaising with the Palestinian Authority so that they will receive the approved equipment according to the agreed upon procedures,” said Gofer. “The illegal construction materials were removed from the ships and will be held by us awaiting further instructions.”
It states they are holding items, BUT, I see your point. They are not saying how much of that cargo is illegal construction. Noted. Teafico (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two errors. The first source doesnt say anything about all the aid being delivered, it talks about truckloads of aid and soon after claims that around 8000 tons has been withheld. The second source says 'the majority of aid was loaded onto trucks' this means that trucks were mostly used, not that most of the aid physically was put on trucks. And what is classed as 'aid' in this source is what has been checked and approved by Israel, which is not all the aid, much of it as stated in the other source has not been allowed by authorities--ValenShephard 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Originally the Jpost article said "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi."
But now there has been more information added to the article "According to Levi, the soldiers also found construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods. He said that Israel did not allow those products to enter into the Gaza strip for fear that they would be used to construct fortifications for terrorists and for weapons manufacture."
So there is now agreement that SOME aid will not be delivered. However the amounts are still in question. The 8,000 Tons is an guess by The Guardian with no reasoning behind it. That does not mean it is wrong, but does mean it is not WP:V.
There is a good chance that things will become clear in the future. Until then all of this should stay in the "Fate of the Cargo" section.
The concern here is keeping the lead factual and concise as per WP:Lead. Bottom line.
Zuchinni one (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just remove the 8,000. We know they're holding construction materials, but we don't know the amount. Stating the construction hold would be good enough, I'd say. Teafico (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activists wielding weapons

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

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

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


You are correct and I have previously asked the user who made this edit to remove it as per the reasons below:
in regards to your addition of "According to Israeli sources" If you look at the activists accounts and the references further down in the article you will see that both sides confirm that there was resistance. Also RS all over the world are reporting that the Israeli soldiers were met with resistance when boarding the boat AND video both from the IDF and the journalists on the boat confirm this. The only point in question is the timing of events.
Please remove this edit as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365944602&oldid=365944468
Zuchinni one (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed "supposedly" without reading this since it also had "according to" which made it redundant. There is no question that they were confronted. Sources from outside of israel are showing the footage. So I would agree with removing "according to"Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is not really any question that this occured Zuchinni one (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Please can we allow the bot to decide when to archive sections ? The decision to manually archive particular sections by editors is non-transparent and open to abuse via selective removal of sections. The bot is neutral and automatic. Let it make the decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the bot to archive left us with well over 100 sections, manual archiving can remove closed threads. If I ever do archive a warm thread, feel free to revert me. Please remove the content from the archive though. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) [reply]

We can have a go a changing the archiving settings. I'll have a look. Alternatively we could all try to not write so much nonsense. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Issues with edit-warring (user: ValenShephard)

Per the recent edit history and above, User ValenShephard has made multiple efforts to add in the same non-lead material (also failing to understand the concept of summaries, that "solid sources" are not gospel, and on multiple occasions failing to read the text before editing, plus making snarky edit history comments), deliberately removing important article context, failed to understand NPOV does not mean removing anything that they think is POV when those are actually sourced accounts from various bodies/individuals within clearly delineated sections of the article, etc. Any input appreciated, please. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those issues have been resolved. Misunderstanding the text, missing something, or making an admitted mistake, is not a crime and is not enough to single me out.--ValenShephard 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually those issues have NOT been resolved as per this: User_talk:ValenShephard, and this: User_talk:Zuchinni_one#Flotilla, and this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Change_in_the_lead:_Supplies_withheld_by_Israel
Zuchinni one (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a "crime", ValenShephard, but you are continuing to make these mistakes, failing to address issues raised and continuing to edit-war.
Other behaviors such as "sneak edits" to the article lead (e.g. adding the word "possibly" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=365959705&oldid=365959476 when that is not in the main body text) as part of a larger edit with long narrative that says nothing about that "addition" are very definitely /not/ appreciated by this editor or WP as a whole, I suspect. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to ask for clarification on what the 1rr entails? Also, comments are signed by typing 4 tildes (~~~~).Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think my personal mistakes, mostly caused by inexperience, should be used against me here. What does it accomplish, except an attempt to discredit my current (not the ones we disputed and largely removed) edits? What is sneaky about it? I wrote exactly what word I had added, where and why. Is that a wikipedia policy or you just made it up?--ValenShephard 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
This is probably not the best article on WP to be editing in a somewhat aggressive manner if you feel yourself to be "inexperienced". Please could you take the time to read up on WP policies and best practice. I do not believe I for one am trying to "discredit you" by stating facts and failure to try to adhere to WP standards since "good faith" must be assumed. Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "possibly" (edit of ValenShephard's) is a big concern. It is verified. There is footage of it. The "according to" + "supposedly" edit also was a little off. You need to stop adding inappropriate modifiers. Make sure to double check the sources and not assume or let to much personal feelings come into it. And sign your comments. Again. Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for me, your suggestions are only that.--ValenShephard 04:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify to whom this is directed and what "suggestions" you are meaning. Thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- How about you both sort it out on the talk page before someone posts an edit warring request against you both or an admin spots the warring in an article covered by 1RR and the discretionary sanctions and carries out an air strike ? It takes 2 to edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or for one user to make changes three times to single edits from three other users, which would be closer to the case overall, here. At present, we cannot edit further at least one area of contention as the user in question has reverted that text in at least three times, IIRC, even /after/ they realised their misinterpretation. Harami2000 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that one user is right and the other 3 are wrong. It doesn't matter. People shouldn't edit war. It isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean: Which is why I raised this on talk rather than seeing that continue... The matter has not been resolved despite ValenShephard's statement "seeing as I have accepted my errors and not argued over the reverts and changes to my edits which the editors" below as that does not reflect either the reality or an understanding/willingness to read up on WP. Harami2000 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you have. Well done. :) So, either editors stop edit warring, engage in discussion here and resolve the content issues or they get reported at WP:ANEW. There's no justification for edit warring about content. It will just get the article locked. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was just coming to say that its not appropriate to go over my behaviour here, especially seeing as I have accepted my errors and not argued over the reverts and changes to my edits which the editors are talking aboutValenShephard 05:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
The sign button must not be working. Please type in the tildes.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- Having said all that I would quite like to see automatic reverting of edits like this by sock-like accounts with almost no edits that do things like pick lower values in a range. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that edit was actually picking a lower value ... it looked like it was simply saying 8000 instead of "8000 out of 10,000". Having said that ... there is still no way to confirm the 8000 since it is merely what the article writer "thought" and it should be kept out of the lead until verified. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just remove the 8,000. We know they're holding construction materials, but we don't know the amount. Stating the construction-materials hold would be good enough, I'd think. Teafico (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's true, I didn't notice that, oops. Still, the shoot first, ask questions later, assume bad faith approach works well for me.. :) But yes, I don't think we need details in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Supreme Court Decision

The article currently reads:

The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal: "In light of Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, Israel has take various steps meant to prevent direct access to the Gaza Strip, including the imposition of a naval blockade on the Strip, which, according to the State's declaration, is meant to block the infiltration of weapons and ammunition into Hamas ranks which have carried out shooting and terrorist attacks in Israeli territory for years with the goal of harming civilians."

I believe this is incorrect. I have just read the Court's full judgment in Hebrew, available here[6]. The numerous petitioners (Al-Jazeera, Adallah, and others) sought a writ of Habeus Corpus. This was the issue which the court primarily dealt with, and the petitions were rejected. However, on page 5, at Paragraph 6, the court writes:

יצוין כי בשל אופיו של ההליך שקיימנו, ביקשנו שלא לעסוק כלל בטענות

הנוגעות לחוקיות הסגר הימי ואף לא בהתרחשות העובדתית באותו אירוע קשה, אשר

מלוא פרטיו לא נפרשו בפנינו.

Translation: "It should be stated that due to the nature of the proceeding we have conducted [pertaining to Habeus Corpus], we have not dealt at all with arguments pertaining to the legality of the naval blockade or the factual occurrences [which took place] at that difficult event [the boarding], and the full details [of the event] were not set out before us."

I would like some other Hebrew speakers to confirm my understanding of the judgment, and then, if you agree, to remove the incorrect information from the article. --Sstr (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The judgment has nothing to do with the question if the blockade was legal or not, if the flotilla was legal or not, or if the raid was legal or not. The rulling was about Israel's Aattorney General's decision to release some of the detainees and deport them, rather than press charges. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point I am making. The Wikipedia page says: "The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal." This is false. The court did not rule on the legality of the blockade or the raid, and said so explicitly. Consequently, I suggest we remove the incorrect information from the article. --Sstr (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that and replaced it with what the source actually said. Is it back ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my per source edit survived for once. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

missing per.

I cant find the section (about planing) what was here just a little time ago. Posted by John at 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 

Ai 00 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the archives, I might have archived it too early. If that is the case, feel free to unarchive it, but remember to delete it from the archive. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) [reply]

"get past" vs. "break"

The lead section has been changed to say that the flotilla was trying to "get past" the blockade, when it previously said "break".

And the description from Free Gaza themselves very clearly say that that their intent is to "... break the siege of Gaza"

Was there any good reason for this change? Or was it just changed to make the flotilla sound more innocuous

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one point it said "go through". I changed it to "get past" with the thinking that you "go through a door" and "get past a bouncer". But I think break would be OK as well and that is often the terminology used when people try to bypass a blockade. I'll leave it up to you and the other editors though to make a decision :) Zuchinni one (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the terminology, to charge a blockade? I note that the San Remo Manual 1994, as quoted by Mark Regev, uses "breaching a blockade" 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) [reply]
The terminology to use is the one that is in the majority/plurality of RS I guess...don't know what that is but 'break' seems likely from what I've read. Or we could just go by whatever the press office of Israel's PM says about everything and save having to search for RS. :) Not sure the word matters much. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza". Since they used the term "break" - I think it's okay to use it here as well. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Peck article link

{{editsemiprotected}}

Minor edit request. But since there is an article, there should be a link to him, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! SpigotMap 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie updates

Seem like the boat will not make its way to Gaza soon because of the lack of accompanying reporters [7]. --Gilisa (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read earlier today that it was confirmed that the ship was waiting for additional video equipment to stream it all live. Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to El País this morning, the base in Cyprus has lost radio contact with the Rachel Corrie. [8] Physchim62 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of the aid, youtube link in the lead

I wish to change the sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza" in the first paragraph to "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast. [8] ". The reasons are

  • One of the two references given for the above statement is a youtube link; this is a primary source, an IDF video, certainly not suited here. The second source talks just about the Israeli offer to unload cargo in Ashdod, not Flotilla's rejection or why it was rejected.
  • The Israeli offer and flotilla's rejection is given elsewhere in the article; here we are describing what happened on 31 May 2010 and not its history.
  • There is no need to go through the cycle of bringing in Israeli offer, its rejection, then why it was rejected, etc which will stretch things to mentioning even cement ( banned material) in the lead.
  • There is no multiple mainstream, neutral media coverage to an Israeli offer in the seas and flotilla's rejection there which lead to the raid. This is part of the background. If there is only this single sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza", then it is not a neutral statement as it does not mention why it was rejected. This can be mentioned, with all details, in the back ground section. The sentence I propose is factual, referenced and neutral. Walky-talky (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this. Israeli commandos raided the ships and that's the event that we are dealing with in this article. The current wording advances one narrative by suggesting the reason for the raid was the GFF's refusal to do something. If we include a reason/excuse for every action we risk creating a textual infinity mirror. RomaC (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about your proposal.
  1. The youtube link in this case is actual footage of the event so it may be valid. I tried to find out what the Wikipedia standards were for youtube videos, but I was unsuccessful ... anyone knowledgeable want to comment?
  2. There was definitely an offer made to deliver the aid and a refusal shortly before the clash
  3. I agree that this lead is a bit full of issues like cement, which though it may be relevant in the larger context ... seems like overkill for the lead.
  4. There are many mainstream sources about the multiple offers. In fact most of the early articles about the clash mentioned them. Perhaps they have been lost in the numerous edit-wars, but they do exist.
All that being said I fully support keeping the lead as concise as possible. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes the full transcript of the radio transmissions, you can read for yourself. Israel Navy: "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostilities which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area coastal region and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of the supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports aboard the vessels on which you arrived." Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The youtube link ( even the radio transmissions) are primary sources. Our guideline is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. ". Not only is it primary, it is not a neutral source and no one has verified its authenticity. It is not our job to verify its authenticity; if it is a significant event, it will be covered in reliable secondary sources and then we can mention it with due weight. Added to this are the problems that will arise out of giving only the offer of Israel and not what its response was (on the seas) or why.Walky-talky (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WW is right. Wiki policies are clear on this, Zuchinni and Marokwitz, please read WP:PRIMARY regarding why IDF YouTube videos are not valid sources. RomaC (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the youtube link should be used as a source. There is a wide variety of secondary sources for this, for example (there are hundreds others): [9] 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of context quote shows bias

The Norweign expert, Palle Ydstebø, views have been taken out of context in what seems to be a biased fashion.

In the "weapons section" the focus is on how this expert says there is no "military" equipment, and "normal items".

But if you actually read the article, you get a _very_ different impression. In the referenced article, he also says this:

"... the large number of ax and hammer handles. Such solid wooden handles is very good as a battlefield weapon… When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight. .. if several attacks a soldier with a knife and gun battles, they can both harm and ultimately kill him."

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fmidtosten%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10008056&sl=no&tl=en

To keep any semblance of fairness and balance here, his expert opinion needs to be put in it's full context also giving his views on possible premeditation of violence, and the pictures showing "very good battlefield weapons".

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you will find axes on pretty much any decently sized boat – as safety equipment. Physchim62 (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find these speculations about intent and possible usage of objects a bit silly personally. I'm expecting to see something about how a Palestinian keffiyeh (like the one in the IDF photo) could be used to muffle someone's cries for help and thus assist terrorism at some point. It seems to me that there is a inverse relationship between the amount of opinion in an article and it's quality. Britannica doesn't write articles this way. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case it's an expert opinion which is being quoted. And half of his opinions (those making the passengers look harmless) have been included, and half of his opinions (speaking of passengers as possessing dangerous battlefield weapons, and possibly premeditating violence) have been left out. How is that not blatant bias? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's discussion above about it at Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_6#Norwegian_military_expert, which pretty much came to agreement after some translation difficulties; I wanted to get what we said right first and was expecting ReneJohnsen to do the edit. I agree we should try to keep things concise and avoid excessive opinionation (outside of the legalities).John Z (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does seem like blatant bias. Leaving things out selectively is tiresome behavior. The information that strikes me as important to include for balance is something about his comment "When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight". I still find it a bit hard to see why we should particularly care about senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø speculations about what it might suggest to have a set of people + a set of objects together in a space. Obviously people aren't harmless and will use whatever is available, not just 'military equipment', to defend themselves whether they're soldiers or people facing soldiers when they feel under attack. Still, if the consensus is to participate in this he said/she said narrative war then the least we can do is not introduce bias ourselves by misrepresenting sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the information in full is the best way to prevent bias, as Sean said. About what Sean wrote "Obviously people aren't harmless and will use whatever is available, not just 'military equipment', to defend themselves", i have an opinion: they don't need to defend themselves in the first place if they are not expecting to be attacked. What i understand is that it was made to call for attention and leave Israel in a bad standing point. I saw one of the "activists" state that this is his second time trying to become a martyr and that he hopes the third time he can become one, so i don't think his primary objective was to aid Gaza, but to die. I don't see how having marbles and slingshots is going to help the people in Gaza. As i just said, it's just my opinion based on what i've seen and read. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean I agree with you on two things. "Leaving things out selectively is tiresome behavior." Happens here and there on Wikipedia but this source looked like it was introduced several hours ago to say "hey look I found this source that said they weren't weapons!" There was a whole discussion on how to fix it. And it got fixed kind of. The second (and more relevant) point I agree with is "I still find it a bit hard to see why we should particularly care about senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø speculations about what it might suggest to have a set of people + a set of objects together in a space." I say axe the whole paragraph. It isn't needed. No offense to the guy but his opinion means very little in the grand scheme of things. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...well yes, also, getting onboard a ship that doesn't have respirators as part of it's fire safety equipment is dumb. speculation sucks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how do people feel about removing the whole paragraph? I know people worked on it and it is a shame to ditch RS but it has too much weight and just is not important enough of an observation to be included.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine either way, lose it all, balance it or maybe cut it back to 'A senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø stated after watching the released pictures that "This is not military equipment"'. The whole narrative war strikes me as bordering on the ridiculous so I probably shouldn't comment... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish involvement, mercenaries, bin laden connection

1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure how this could be included in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By finding coverage of these stories in multiple international RS first ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jpost is a reliable source. I don't know what an "international R.S" is. Those links provide explicit and important data that could improve the article on a factual-level. Turkish jihadist charity hosted flotilla "aid" ship. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence showing this ship was far from a humanitarian vessel, based on its crew, its cargo, and testimony from the Turkish commander and audio-video footage. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is but including material like this simply on the basis that it appears in an Israeli or a Palestinian RS is not a smart way to proceed. If it is notable, verifiable and worth our attention it will appear in a whole spectrum of RS outside of the area of conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Palestinian RS are there? Israeli media is perfectly reliable and not someway different from non-Israeli media. We aren't discriminating against Al Jazeera even though its journalists already had a biased presence from the very start of raid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'an is a Palestinian RS in my view but I guess you would dispute that and it's not pertinent in this case. 'discriminating against'...drama. Israeli media are not perfectly reliable and they are different from non-Israeli media. You can replace the word 'Israeli' in that sentence with any other nationality you like and it will still be true. My simple point, which I think you already understand perfectly well and are just being difficult, is that if something is notable, verifiable and worth our attention it will appear in a whole spectrum of RS not just the Israeli press. Overreliance on Israeli media (and I'm a fan of some of it) or including something contentious that only appears in the Israeli media and isn't picked up internationally is a bad idea for this article. We should be using a spectrum of RS available out there to avoid introducing systemic bias and due weight/NPOV compliance issues. It shouldn't be a problem to find all sorts of sources if something is notable and merits inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And since the subject has come up, I'll say something else. What I strongly object to and regard as willful non-compliance with NPOV obligations by partisan editors is when editors make edits like this introducing contentious material cited to a single partisan source without any attempt whatsoever to look for a response for balance or other sources. This is not helpful. It's like expecting someone to wash up your dirty plates for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a dubious comparison. Jpost has relationships with WSJ and cooperates with AP. Media rights in Palestinian-controlled areas are extremely limited and journalist freelancers are routinely intimidated. There is no difference between Israeli media and non-Israeli media. Jpost is just as reliable as BBC, if not more - as BBC is woefully dependent on anonymous freelancers, whereas Jpost provides far more in-depth and up to date stories. BBC has yet to break the news about the jihadist link and turkish government involvement. There is no systematic bias here, just an individual editor saying certain information should be excluded because it comes from an Israeli paper...but news coming from Europe, a continent with an historical bias against Jews..is honky dory. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's probably a conflict of interest what with me being a nazi or something and hating people like Bar Refaeli. :) "There is no difference between Israeli media and non-Israeli media."..."a continent with an historical bias against Jews", sigh, I'm not having this conversation, although I'll try to dig out a very nice Israeli study I remember that used deterministic methods to generate metrics for linguistic bias in the Israeli media for you when I get a chance sometime. I'm not saying that it should be excluded. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a problem to find all sorts of sources if it's notable and merits inclusion and it would be better to take that approach. If you add the material I won't be the one that reverts you. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize legality section

I believe the legality section should not be in pro/contra sections, but in sections by legal issue. As I see it, there are three issues, the second one in two parts: the legality of the blockade; the legality of boarding ships in international waters presuming the blockade itself is legal or presuming it is illegal; and the proportionality of the force used. Each of these 2 large sections and 2 subsections would have pro and contra arguments. This would lead to less repetition than the current structure, which is organized by source, and thus states many arguments redundantly. Homunq (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about:
  • Innocent passage and international waters
  • Naval blockades
  • Proportionality
It is not for Wikipedia to "decide" either way if the attack was legal, but to give readers information about the three legal concepts, and how they have been "applied" (by commentators) to this situation. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that mixing the arguments is a good idea in principle, but would likely result in a difficult editing process. I'd suggest to tackle this at some point in the future. The section could be converted into a sub-article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good in general. I believe you'd need a separate subsection of "blockades" for "blockades and humanitarian aid". Homunq (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info about the legality of the blockade belongs in Gaza_blockade#Legal_arguments. This article isn't about that or at least it shouldn't be. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be updated or removed

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [193]

see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898429,00.html The petition is not particularly relevant, without a disclosed legal basis accepted by the high court. I suggest removing this mention or update with the high courts decision. AFarber (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Gaza_flotilla_raid#Israeli_judicial_decisions I believe it notes their petition was denied, but I am not particularly familiar with the case or the source cited. If you could provide a specific quote that would help. Thanks,--Nosfartu (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from the link above as follows should suffice: The petition was formally revoked by the petitioners after the initial response of the court.

Justice Beinish responded to the petition: "It is clear that the suit was filed in haste. Even though the petitioners knew nothing of what had occurred, they did not hesitate to hurriedly place the gravest possible stain on the IDF forces' actions while using sharp and abrasive language that was out of place..." I strongly suggest removing the passage since there was no petition in the end and the passage does not contribute factually and is not NPOV. At least Justice Beinish didn't think so AFarber (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding

The facts are unnecessarily vague. I suggest including personal accounts of Al-Jazeera cameraman for example, 

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6521UG.htm

and account of Israeli soldier who claims to have killed six of the pro-Palestinian activists: 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445

The independent accounts presumably from different political perspectives appear to corroborate each other. AFarber (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support more detail on the violence while boarding per AFarber - the facts do seem to be becoming clearer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding details from these personal accounts, as long as it is not done by one of the editors with serious POV problems, selectively quoting to push their own viewpoint (as has been done dozens of times in this article). Marokwitz (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

video material during the raid to greek Sefdoni ship

Today a video from the raid in the Greek ship Sfndoni has been published by http://tvxs.gr/node/59618 (tvxs.gr). In the video you can hear the first minutes of the raid and the discussions between the activists and the Israeli soldiers. You can hear gunshots etc, some part of the video conversation is in English language. This is a rare documentary because all the recorded material, photos, videos has been stoled by the Israeli army during the raid. Ggia (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing story

I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against WP:SYNTH, but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Carlill, Bren (2 June 2010). "Israel Attacks Flotilla Bound For Gaza". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  2. ^ Conal Urquhart (20 September, 2007). ["Israel declares Gaza Strip hostile territory". Guardian. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  3. ^ Marian Houk (January 04, 2009). ["Israel announces formal naval blockade of Gaza, surrounds Gaza City". American Chronicle. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNNWorld was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ UN says Gaza blockade hinders reconstruction aid, AFP
  6. ^ Associated Press: Israel's use of captured video draws criticism
  7. ^ Associated Press: Israel's use of captured video draws criticism
  8. ^ "More Than 10 Dead After Israel Intercepts Gaza Aid Convoy". Wall Street Journal. 31 May 2010. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=366039121"