Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:



Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2017[edit]

Please change the name of the expert to the Turkel Commission 'Wolf Heintschel von Heineg' to 'Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg'. The doubled consonants 'ff' and 'gg' are part of the professor's name (cf. his german Wikipedia article). 91.16.106.100 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Kingsindian   20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Extremely NPOV Photos and captions[edit]

The use of photographs in this article is distinctly non-NPOV. Of the 24 photos in this article, the majority are clearly intended to suggest that the flotilla was primarily an armed attack rather than a delivery of relief. Examples:

  • 2 depictions of commandos injured in the raid, but only one picture of an activist killed, despite the fact that proportionately, there were more injuries and deaths among the activists.
  • Captions of photos states "Footage taken from the Mavi Marmara security cameras shows the activists preparing to attack IDF soldiers." I could change this wording to say "preparing to defend against attacking IDF soldiers" and it would be just as true. If you are standing on your own deck and an invading force is attempting to board you, they are the attackers, and you are the defenders. It doesn't matter what race, religion or political affiliations are involved. Neutral wording should have been used, such as "Activists preparing for encounter with IDF soldiers" for example.
  • Disproportionate number of photos of weapons found on boat, almost no photos of other materials found. Clearly this is a deliberate attempt to present the boat as a hostile attacking force. Meanwhile, there are no photos of the arms carried by the Israeli commandos during the boarding, no photos of blood, corpses, or injuries, aside from one token picture of a dead activist.
  • Photo captioned "Activists throw a stun grenade into an IDF speedboat" but fails to mention that the stun grenade was originally thrown by the Israelis and was then thrown BACK. Again, clearly an attempt to present the case in the worst possible light for the activists. If you throw something at me, and I throw it back at you, I am not the aggressor. Caption is deliberately misleading.
  • "Night vision binoculars found on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, along with a scope to be mounted on a sniper rifle" and yet no photo of a sniper rifle? A scope is nothing but a telescope. It's not a weapon. Given that it's shown with binoculars, what's the reason for specifically saying SNIPER RIFLE in the caption? Clearly the only reason is to make it sound more sinister and dangerous than it actually is.
  • Multiple photos describing passengers as "hitting" or "preparing to attack" but not one photo of IDF soldiers attacking, despite the self-evident fact that the ISF forces committed multiple violent attacks against the passengers. No soldiers were killed, multiple passengers were killed, but the photos and their captions imply that the passengers were the sole aggressors.
  • A ridiculous FIVE pictures of collections of weapons, which includes things like sticks and kitchen knives, hand tools and other miscellaneous objects, only two photos of relief supplies, despite the fact that the quantity of relief supplies was enormous compared to the "arsenal" of sticks and such found aboard.
  • The only photos of relief supplies are of cloth and medicines, and in both medicine photos, the caption points out that they were expired. Clearly an attempt to imply that since the medicines were expired, the relief effort as a sham, when in fact expired medications are often used in relief efforts, because they can still be effective after expiration, sometimes for years afterwards. Add a statement that expired medicines are still valuable and useful for relief efforts, or take out the extra photo, or maybe just say medicines instead of expired medicines.
  • Photo of rolls of fabric include some camouflage pattern fabric, but also other colors, however the caption suggests that this cloth is being provided only for camouflage purposes, when it's obvious in the photo itself that non-camouflage fabric is also there. Camouflage fabric is trendy and commonplace everywhere. Mentioning the camouflage pattern is a way to imply a sinister purpose for the cloth, but it's just cloth.

There are more issues, but this really needs to be cleaned up. The bias is extreme and this article cannot be considered NPOV as long as these photos and captions remain as they are. 24.170.207.189 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Which specific edits do you propose to remedy this? --Dailycare (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The stun grenade point was noticed by me a long time ago, but I forgot to fix it. Unfortunately, people add photographs and captions without sourcing all the time. This is a long-standing problem.

Many of the photos come from the IDF Flickr account which should not be used in the first place; not even an attribution is given. Many of the photos were added by an editor who from what I saw, used to do little else but add photos from the IDF Flickr account. I count no less than 16 photos sourced to the IDF Flickr account on this article, which is ridiculous. Kingsindian   19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am, at the least, deleting the photos which have supporting description in the text. I expect there will be still be some of them left; one should really get photos from neutral sources, but since only the IDF photos are left, the media did use only those, IIRC. The captions should be changed as well; I'll do it later. I'll list below a few which I removed:

  • A few images about expired medicine. There is nothing in the supporting article which says anything, though I have checked that Israel did make the claim.
  • The photo of the soldier helping a woman off the ship is an obvious propaganda photo of no value whatsoever. It also has no connection to the text.
  • Fixed the caption about the stun grenade, and removed one photo of slingshots. There are enough photos of weapons.
  • Remove the photo about sniper rifle scope. Speculative and there is no mention in the text of any sniper rifle.
  • Remove the photo about knives. There's a photo further down of the same thing from a different angle, in the section about weapons.
  • Remove one photo about the security camera footage. Similar photo exists in the next section.

Right now I have removed less than half of the photos from the IDF Flickr account. It's debatable whether they should be used at all, but for now, I'm not touching them. Kingsindian   20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This guy is priceless! What does NPOV stand for? Not Nazi Point of View, I hope. Mspaaz (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Mavi Marmara boarding[edit]

The UNHRC report does indeed find that the helicopter fired live rounds on Mavi Marmara prior to the soldiers landing on the deck, but the Palmer report, which was written after the UNHRC one, does not. I think the article should point this out. Neutral Point of View, and all. (Earlier, I was confused, due to there being two UN reports about the incident. Sorry about that!) Mspaaz (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)