Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10


Route of the flotilla image

The current image showing the route of the flotilla is not accurate. The larger part of the map is missing, and the routes of the ships from Greece, Ireland and the US are not displayed on the image. Mavi Marmara also called at Antalya before rendezvousing with the rest of the flotilla near Cyprus, which is not displayed on the map. I couldn't find any information on where the American ships originally sailed from, but still, I think it would be good if someone can replace this map with a more accurate one. --386-DX (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Blocked area to Map

In addition it would be useful to shade area claimed as blocked by Israel, Gaza strip water territory and Israel water territory. --Nevit (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Gaza strip water territory", Gaza is an area on a map comparable to referring to the Appalachians, similarly there is no Appalachian water territory, only US water territory. IMHO, the blockade is preventing a landing/supplying in the strip, so I believe it would essentially be the coast. A peaceful vessel simply sailing through Israeli territorial waters, with no intentions to land or interact with Gaza, would not likely be considered as violating the blockade, even if it was only miles offshore. A map showing a generalized depiction of territorial waters is on the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article, is there really a need to show Israel-specific ones? (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, there IS a "Gaza strip water territory". Even Israel is not claiming territorial rights over the waters of Gaza. They are instead saying that they are enforcing a blockade on the area because they are in an armed conflict with the Hamas regime in the region. Please check Israel MFA website for more info. Unlike Appalachians, Gaza is not part of Israel. --386-DX (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You missed a distinction, they didn't claim territorial rights over that water but simultaneously don't acknowledge it being the territorial waters of any other nation. Gaza's final status is still rather unknown, currently its status is that it is disputed territory with assorted claimants. Still, the terminology "Gaza strip water territory" seems to give that area more of an official status than actually exists. The Appalachians were admittedly a less-than-perfect example. Northern Cyprus would likely be a better example, though still not a very good one. As far as I know there is no other modern example of an area of land which lacks a formally stated inclusion by at least one nation considered part of the internation community. In 1979 Egypt essentially just abdicated its claim to the strip without recognizing an alternative nation in its place. (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Videos released by the Turkish?

Somebody had added to the intro that the videos were released by IDF and by the Turkish(!). All the videos are released by IDF. They have seized those of people onboard. No one else can possibly release a video. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They were able to transmit live during the raid.--Cerian (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Not during the raid. Based on what I have read in multiple sources, the communications were disconnected at that point. Note also were are talking about videos which require a reasonable amount of bandwidth. You can of course change my mind if you provide me with a reliable source. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Al Jazeera was still broadcasting live through at least the initial part of the raid.
See the video here which I remember seeing before Israel had release anything at all. Jamal Elshayyal was giving a live report claiming that two people have been killed, and the organizers asked everyone to go inside.
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, their signal was jammed during the raid. // Liftarn (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is not Turkish. --Nevit (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I was watching the live video during the raid from their website, and yes, they were transmitting. --386-DX (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoing changes in the lead unless discussed first

Hi all, would anyone support unlimited undos for any content changes to the lead that are not first discussed on the talk pages? Grammar, punctuation, and other minor changes would be OK, but it's getting kind of annoying reverting the massive changes of POV editors on both sides.

Right now the lead seems pretty reasonable to me. And clearly it needs to change over time, but this might help to prevent massive changes from users who aren't even trying to be a part of the discussion.

Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead needs to be constantly updated to reflect new information, which is coming out fast and furious. For example, statements by Israeli soldiers that their comrades were captured and their guns taken from them is now corroborated by statements from activists and journalists. It also needs to be guarded to retain old information. For example, that the initial attack on the Israeli landing party is shown on videos released both by the IDF and by Turkish TV was known from day one. However, this keeps getting deleted completely or presented as being shown only on IDF-released videos. This is presumably for POV reasons, but whatever the reason, the info is important. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Jalapenos, your last massive edit did not include every new source needed to back up the new info. Please, be gentle and share it with the rest of the editors. Thanks, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
My edit wasn't "massive", but more to the point: what wasn't sourced? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You did not provide a single new source. Where was that new info that we did not see before? --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • About undoing unsourced or undiscussed pov-pushing edits by default, I absolutely agree. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalepenos, the problem is NOT that you want to add new info to the lead, but the fact that you made HUGE changes to a section that has been massively discussed and tweaked to avoid POV. If you think those changes need to be made then please explain why in the Talk section and let the rest of the community contribute as well. Until then I will ask you to revert the re-insertion of your changes. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Jalapenos, I've just reverted your unsourced & undiscussed pov-pushing re-revert, after you were warned not to do that. Please, discuss your changes to the lead on talkpage. --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Jalapenos, please discuss your changes one by one here. Intro is only meant to be a short summary of the article. It need not go through the details of how one side views the story. Sure, such details can, and are, included in the article and people will read them. People will learn this even if we don't put it up here because of the significant media coverage of this topic. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Zucchini. Yes, sounds good. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with Jalapenos revision. The flotilla did have affiliations with the turkish islamic extremists - source 1, and a son of osama bin laden might have been involved as well. The current edit assumes the ships were carrying humanitarian aid, but from what we know now most of the cargo was largely worthless. The only thing of merit were the bullet-proof vests, night-vision goggles, gas masks, and ammunition. I'm not sure if that has been mentioned in the article yet, but Hamas doesn't want the aid anymore and it has prevented international aid organizations from delivering it through the border. The intro needs to reflect the reality, there is nothing wrong with massive edits if the edits are predicated on facts. An article like this needs to be updated fast as the information keeps coming. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've included the characterization of the international reaction as "outrage" in the lead a few times, along the lines of a previous discussion (now archived) but someone keeps removing this. The reaction is characterized as "outrage" in at least these sources, can we agree on including the term? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10--Dailycare (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why Jallepenos edit is POV? I've provided sources supporting his edits above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, allright. There are two points: By POV, we mean Point of View, i.e. something that either activists or Israelis would not consider theirs. The other thing is that the intro should faithfully summarize the article. Some of the details provided can be added with attribution to IDF for instance, but that then requires mentioning the details provided by the other side. That is, how they see the story. This would make the intro blow up. But the intro should not give undue weight to one section of the article. Now, you believe that the ships "were not carrying humanitarian aid", that is, you consider the ship mainly having construction material, and those you consider as worthless stuff. Please provide a reliable sources that says that the latter is the official Israeli position. You think it carried instead weapons. That's really a point of view of the Israeli government. It should be added together with a counter-statement by the activists. But that makes the intro blow up. Would that help? Maybe, maybe not. --11:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoostdarWKP (talkcontribs)
If the POV of the israeli government is supported by facts (audio-video, named testimony, including confessions from activists) then it would be silly to simply say, "Israel says..." Just because there are two sides does not mean we should remove information that might somehow make one look more credible than the other. I've provided sources above supporting Jal's edits when most of you said it was "unacceptable" so what is the problem here? It's been 6 days and the article still does not reflect what the most recent mainstream sources say.
There are numerous details that the video does not "prove". For instance, it does not show if the Israeli soldiers started shooting before boarding the ships, or the sequence of events. --386-DX (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "outrage" is quite strong word. Do we really have to be in the lead? We should try to keep the lead neutral as possible. --Kslotte (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The strength of the word is not related to the neutralty of the tone. The overwhelming international reaction was indeed outrage, so it should be noted in the article as such, in order to make it reflect reality more accurately. --386-DX (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

new pictures and news report of beaten israeli commandos from raid

[1]. these pictures seems to support the israeli claims. In one of them you can even see two activists waiting behind a door with metal rods in their hands. Eldudarino (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We should include the pictures if they are actual ones. Also we may check if the killed activists/passengers match any of those in the pictures. On the other hand even journalists were shot on the ship.
Certainly there were some 10-20 activists who are ready to attack commandos if they board. IDF already released those videos. On the other hand IDF knew they were planning for a clash and their cold weapons since they have night vision cameras. Both Turkish and Israel governments knew what would exactly going to happen on the ship. And according to international and Turkish passengers IDF mistreated the captured passengers, beat them and sexually harrassed women, stripping them naked etc. Kasaalan (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source[2]. This is a significant development and should be included in the article. Since the photos obviously come from a reliable source (nobody can claim the Turkish are pro-Israeli in this), I think some of them should also be included. (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

One more source [3], these are higher res and better quality than the others I've seen. The article claim they were recovered from erased (by the IDF) memory cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talkcontribs) 10:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(The following text is combined from a section below for ease of discussion) Zuchinni one (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pics of beaten commandos published. This is brand new information. Here are the pictures: 1, 2, 3, 4. These pictures were taken by journalists/activists on-board prior to the shootings. Ynet has an article claiming the IDF soldiers tried to censor the pictures and that was what the whole stolen-memory stick dispute issue came from. Not sure how this could be merged into the article but I think it is very relevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(The following text is combined from a section below for ease of discussion) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirov Airship (talkcontribs) 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to Auschwitz

I know that now the RS blander will start all over again, but here is my harvest from today:

"Go back to Auschwitz" "Don't forget 9/11 guys"


And the full correspondence from IDF as source on YouTube:


Foltila 13 soldiers humiliated and attacked, espcially photo 7, the source is not else then one of the biggest news paper in Turkey (photos available in Turkish version only)


Fox news on IHH as terror linked organisation:


Something of all of this must find its way to the article. This whole foltila incident seem to be a provocative act of Turkey under Arduan's regime. It can be understood from some of the board articles from the latest days on the Washington Post, New York Times and others.

--Gilisa (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel has admitted that it doctored the audiotape. [8] (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't drop crap here please. Israel "admited" no such thing, I can only guess who is the one behind the source you provided here. --Gilisa (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
the audio has been doctored, as analysed by Max Blumenthal. Indeed the language used could only have come from a zionist...the Go Back to Aushwitz' is classic hasbara. Mossad motto: By Way of Deception , you shall do war!' We can only guess who did the doctoring...but it confirms that this attack was not just any ordinary interception: it was designed to minimise Israel culpability while demonising the activists.Jalusbrian (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any RS to support your claims? ShalomOlam (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF says that the audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange. The entire segment (almost 6 minutes long) is also available on-line. ShalomOlam (talk)
Yes. They released a 30 second clip which was obviously edited but then made a clarification and released a 5-min clip. Source here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talkcontribs) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Did you harvest any other sources that might add improve the article, or are you cherry-picking those that will support the sensationalistic Ynet website angle? Seriously Gilisa, are alleged derogatory remarks where you see the story? Are there any non-Partisan sources that focus on inflammatory language? I wonder if IDF commando "Sgt. S" muttered anything rude while he was pumping rounds into the napes of people's necks... Can editors please leave their agendas at the door? RomaC (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, I can't understand your complaint. What exactly you want me to do? Any of these sources add notable issue in case you skip it unnoticed. The transmission from the peace activists foltila, the photos of soldiers after being bitten from a Turkish newspaper itself and etc. These are all relevant for the main issues here. --Gilisa (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gilisa. I think reliable sources in non-partisan media are focusing on bullets in the dead passengers, not bites on the commandos -- would you not agree? You seem to be harvesting sources which support a certain set of data, which is sometimes called cherry picking. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not cherry picking and thanks for explaining but I know what the term mean. Anyway, although the bulk, maybe, of media sources were focus on those who been killed in the commando raid, they still mentioned many many times Israeli arguments and the volume of these is changed both in content and in quality, as well as in the way different media sources treat them, during these days. In any case, this analysis is not for us to make and there is no violation of WP:UNDUE in the sources I mentioned, on the opposite. This is the side of the story I'm focusing on, it's my right, right!? --Gilisa (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
youre on the wrong side of history. An anaylysis is done when you cherry pick. Pity your postings do not reflect what really happened. The fact the israelis have had to use dodgy tactics like faking audios(the faux racist: Go back to Aushwitz), the denial of live ammunition, and the paintball bananas, the use of doctored videos to portay the attack as if Israel was a victim of violent jihadis in a routine inspection of a boat; the theft of videos and photos(were they ever returned?)...These blatant tactics should tell anyone who is the guilty party. SO try not to make Wikipedia or Israel look any more corrupt than they already are by your spin.Jalusbrian (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See an article in today's Guardian, where it seems that the IDF have backed down from the claim that this recording is accurate. I could give you the exact source given time. PatGallacher (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Silence wasn't the only thing removed from (or added to?) the recordings. Even the so-called full version is not enough to prove the authenticity of the recordings. Anyone could add those extra statements to the recording using a simple audio editing software. The FGM activists and the captain of Challenger 1 also refused the authenticity of the recordings. Both the Israeli and the FGM claims are clearly presented in the article, which is more than sufficient to reflect a neutral POV. --386-DX (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel's POWs in the ship showed by turkish newspaper

I've found these pictures that show soldiers captured in the assault

I don't understand turkish but according to a friend these are pictures taken by the activists and saved by this turk newspaper.

--Bentaguayre (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They sure do look like non violent peace activists, don't they? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
well the soldiers who shot at them with live rounds killing 9 and drowning at least 4, beat them up, put them in stress positions, refused to give them water or medical treatment..were not exactly jewish angels! Try to show a little context before you expose your hasbara tricks on this site Youre only turnig Wik into a useless appendage of the zionist media Jalusbrian (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is very clear from the photos that the activists could have lynched or killed the soldiers if they wanted to. In my opinion, yes, they are non violent. Don't forget that "peace activist" does not necessarily have to mean "pacifist". If foreign soldiers carrying automatic rifles break into your house, you have a right to defend yourself. --386-DX (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not IDF that "broke" into their house. It was the other way around - those people's houses are not in Israel or Gaza, and they were heading into Israeli teritorial waters and blockade zone. So - who broke into who's house? ShalomOlam (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The IDF broke into their house: the ship...The water the ships were sailing thru are international(not Israels),and they were headed for the independent territory of Gaza, currently being blitzkrieged by Israel....Is that too much for you to grasp? or is being zionist your main problem? Jalusbrian (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Gaza is not independent. It is Hamas-controlled, and therefor under military blockade by the IDF. Since there is no ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the blockade is legal, and so is every attempt to stop ship who wish to break the blockade. Even if the ships were in international waters when they were raided (since they were on the move, heading into the blockade area). ShalomOlam (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

as israel has confiscated all video and photo material of the journalists and still not given back we don't have more material unfortunately.--Severino (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


These sections about the Turkish photos are growing like crazy. There have been 5 of them so far.

Could Zucchini or another long time wiki editor give some guidance here, and clarify the policy of using photos from a news source? Can we use these images that Hurriyet published? Is it fair use? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talkcontribs)

Hurriyet and other major Turkish news sources copyright their contents. --Nevit (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

POWs? Oh dear, more drama. These photo's can be used on the same basis as the IDF sourced photo's. The limitations are the same in both cases, either we can use them both under fair use or neither. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF soldier vs. activist

WELL we keep hearing on this thread of how nasty brutal humanitarians were beating up sweet gentle shayetet13 commmandos..Itd be funny except that 9 peopel are confirmed dead(none israeli), 4 at least are presumed dead by drowing...(none israeli) 50 odd injured(most not israeli), The Chtutzpah gene enables the zionisst here to ignore the non-jewish dead and injured while spinning thisnatrocity to benefit the state of denial called israel. SO lets ask someone who WAS there: Jalusbrian (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the caption of the image showing am IDF soldier being attacked keeps getting edited, I propose that I make a template for it to transclude onto the page. The template can be protected if needs be then. The caption I have seen to date that I think would be the best caption is "Snapshot of footage taken by the IDF from the MV Mavi Marmara; Both IDF and activists on board have acklowdeged that this shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe. Source: IDF"

File:Activistboatclash.jpg‎: Snapshot of footage taken by the IDF from the MV Mavi Marmara; Both IDF and activists on board have acklowdeged that this shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe. Source: IDF

and I suggest a source from the IDF saying they were attacked, and a source saying the activists saying they used pipes etc. (for self defence). Also to be included could be "The IDF suggest that they were paid mercenaries" with a source.
Once we have decided this, I will make the template to stop it from being changed. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 12:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'd suggest that we request semi-protection for the template, to match the protection here. I'd be happy including the wording you suggest, appropriately cited to unimpeachable sources, where both "sides" are in agreement. I wouldn't be happy with the "paid mercenary" part. Unless the "paid mercenaries" were to confirm that. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The template's talk page would also make an excellent venue for discussing this recurring issue ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 12:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If both sides agree on what this shows, why not just shorten it to shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe, with references to both sides of the story? Or we can use 'shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe - according to the activists in self defense. (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue is more with what happens over there, rather than what we decide on this side of the talk page/article divide. Editors are going to continue to change the text; this way we can isolate that part and handle it in isolation.
Incidentally, repeatedly changing this text is covered by the 1RR sanctions, just the same as everything else here. I'd suggest advising editors who change the text away from the consensus version; they may not be aware that there's (a) a talk page, and (b) restrictions on how many times we can revert.
Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 12:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe sounds okay to me. However, I object to "activists used pipes in self defence", since self defence is a disputed claim. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Fighting between activists and an IDF soldier" Physchim62 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That implies that both sides were on equal standing, however in this picture, the activist is standing over the fallen IDF soldier wielding a pipe upon high. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest [9] for the IDF side; can someone find one from the activists side saying they fought in self defence. I'm sure I've seen them, but I can't find them atm. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the template so far: {{Gfr_soldier-activist_pic}}

Hi, this is not a good wording . The picture definitely DOESN'T SHOW the SOLDIER. It shows the ACTIVIST, beating a soldier which can't be seen in the picture. I suggest changing to : "Snapshot of footage taken by the IDF from the MV Mavi Marmara; both IDF[1] and activists on board have acklowdeged that this shows an activist beating an Israeli soldier with an iron pipe." -- (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

so, according to the *IDF* also the activist(s) have acknowledged the soldier was beaten? then we also have to mention the self defence according to the activist.--Severino (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

another point is that in many respects its dubious for this online encyclopedia to use material which could also origin from the confiscated one of the journalists, which the israel military uses without permission to proove their POV...--Severino (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The video in question was taken with night vision from an IDF naval boat. Regardless, see point #3 in my summary below.  —Rafi  18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the debate

The debate here has been going in circles for days now. Here's a summary I posted above at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage (revised here).

Some recurring arguments:

  1. All we can see is a man holding a stick; interpreting what's happening is POV.
  2. Broader context is needed regarding who attacked first, was acting in self-defense, etc.
  3. The IDF is biased/corrupt so their footage is illegitimate.
  4. This is the IDF's version, so we should write "claimed," "allegedly," etc.
  5. There are too many images supporting Israel's side, creating unbalance. (There are currently two images in the section "Israel's account.")


  1. The events transpiring in the footage are undeniable if you watch the video. If your vision is too selective then there are numerous secondary sources that explain it, for example [10][11][12]. Not even the activists involved dispute it; they only dispute the context.
  2. My caption (proposed below) makes no comment on who used violence first or was acting in self-defense. The broader context, which is disputed, is available to readers in the text. Also keep in mind that the image is in the "Israel account" section, so the activists' version shouldn't get undue attention here.
  3. The extreme version of this argument is obviously POV. More legitimate criticism of how the IDF handled the footage belongs in other sections of the article.
  4. See WP:CLAIM.
  5. If one of the images has to go, it should be the one of the soldier being thrown. The activist with metal rod in hand is an icon of the IDF account. Alternatively, editors can add more images to the activists' account to achieve balance, instead of watering down the Israel account. Also notice that the article's lead image shows commandos with assault rifles.

This is my preferred caption:

Snapshot of footage showing activists[1] with rods beating a fallen soldier[1]. Source: IDF.[2]
Refs: [1] WaPost or other secondary sources from above, [2] <ref name="IsraeliVideo" /> (Israel's Foreign Ministry)

I prefer external secondary sources to "both the IDF and activists acknowledge" because the former is more concise. The secondary references weaved into the caption should hopefully deter drive-by edit-warring. Making a template was also a good idea.

 &#151;Rafi  18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that! TFOWRidle vapourings 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
There are many examples of IDF being an unreliable source. One of the latest I saw is here. Unfortunately previous discussions ended in favor of including IDF sources.
Are there any sources that support that the audio is "doctored"? The site you mention doesn't seem to offer anything substantial, nor contradict the IDF position on the issue.kzm (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

--Nevit (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevit, the image is in a section titled Israel's account. The caption plainly says Source: IDF. If you have RS's that meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT that criticize the IDF's handling of footage, that could be incorporated somewhere in the article, but it doesn't belong here. We can also criticize the credibility of the activists; but they are entitled to a section on their narrative as well.  &#151;Rafi  20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We should use IDF footages. On the other hand we should stress they are edited footage. And they cut off parts IDF commandos attack etc. Or later treatment to the activists. IDF also erased all data from all journalists. So there is a direct censorship. Kasaalan (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
See my response to Nevit and points 2, 3 in my summary.  &#151;Rafi  14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A Consensus Please

Rafi suggested a caption that some people agreed with, I suggest changing the second use of the first source to

Snapshot of footage showing activists[1] with rods beating a fallen soldier[2]. Source: IDF.[3]

Can you either agree or disagree so that a consensus can be achieved, and this issue determined once and for all.

I agree 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just curious why you want to use the WaPost ref then switch to the Ynet ref. If you're trying to make it look strong, maybe use both twice, like "... activists[1][2] ... soldier[1][2] ... IDF[3]." I'd prefer a consistent look because both parts have solid credibility. Anyway, I agree with any combination of sources.
Nice job with the template.  &#151;Rafi  04:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

because of the israeli confiscation of journalists and activists video and photo material with selective usage of this material by israel to push its narrative, this narrative is predominant now. we have to be careful not to support this bias here.--Severino (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to this argument three times in the last subsection.  &#151;Rafi  14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Gaza flotilla raids (plural)

They've raided more than one now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talkcontribs) 00:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "raid" should be removed all together. Wikipedia says that Raid (military) is an operational executed with surprise. And since IDF clearly warned the flotilla that it is going to try and stop them, than the term "raid" is misused. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite warnings, it can still be describe as a raid, as it was sudden. Also a synonym for raid would be "seizure" Raid. Using Wikipedia's definition is using Wikipedia as a dictionary, and WP:DICTIONARY. --Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a very long and extensive debate about the naming of the article, and the current name was accepted with a very wide consensus. Please check the archives. --386-DX (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You probably mean the seizure of MV Rachel Corrie as a second raid. That raid has its own article Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie. So, no plural is needed. --Kslotte (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reuters doctored/cropped a photo

A while ago Reuters doctored some photos of the Lebanon war and it was uncovered by a blogger at the website Little Green Footballs. Article here:

Well it looks like they have done it again. Here is an uncropped photo of an injured soldier posted on a Turkish news website: The knife is clearly seen in the bottom right corner.

Here's that same photo, posted on the Day Life website by Reuters Pictures, but doctored so the knife is taken out:

I'm not sure what articles of theirs this photo has been used in.
Here is the blog where this was found: Faaaaaaamn (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, had spotted that on the version ex. Reuters as linked above (although at that stage it was not yet clear - to me, anyhow - that all those pics had a common Turkish source). The edit also makes it less clear that that particular image was (presumably?) taken prior to removing that particular Israeli soldier (further?) below deck given the stairs are more obvious in the uncropped version. Harami2000 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You need an RS that talks about this. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would hardly say it's "doctored": it has been cropped to center on the Israeli solider. You can still see the handle of the knife (although the original caption of "knife-wielding" is hardly neutral either). Physchim62 (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Any objection to 'knife-carrying' since that simply notes what is not perhaps immediately clear in the thumb?
Not sure why the photo has been moved into the 'Israeli account' section, too, since that could be read as further supporting /their/ account/POV given the other images already in that section. It seemed like more neutral in the previous context, pre-move, anyhow, and was (allegedly) an image the IDF attempted to 'suppress'... Harami2000 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Why include this? There is nothing wrong with cropping a picture. --Kslotte (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if that potentially distorts the story that is published alongside in the media for general public consumption?
Yes, admittedly it's more of a "issue" for Reuters than for Wikipedia article content... I don't think it's easy to state at what point "alternative versions" are worthwhile noting in the main article, save that using the "best available" is probably a sensible approach?
aside: Reuters other cropped image was even more obvious as it removed not only the knife but also the prone/injured Israeli soldier on that ground; vs. (as linked on the blog). Harami2000 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Perhaps I wasn't clear. An RS is required in cases like this and editors need to stop repeating claims here on this talk page about Reuters that don't come from reliable sources. Unsourced or poorly sourced material can't be in an article if it might damage the reputation of an organization and it can't be on the talk page either per WP:PROVEIT. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Discussing this matter in talk, however, seems fair enough as it is not "unsourced/poorly sourced" but a statement of fact that these photographs exist in cropped and uncropped versions. It would appear to be common sense to ensure that editors are at the very least aware of this (and to seek RSs specifically on the matter to bring to the discussion, should they wish) and to take this matter into account for any resultant contextual /content/ in RSs where cropped vs. uncropped pictures are used when considering how to include any associated text in WP. Harami2000 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Little Green Footballs a reliable source? and Faaaaaaamn (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As already noted on my 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC) edit, above, thank you. Harami2000 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit]] Apologies, I missed that the first line of your message had run into my previous indent. Little Green Footballs is listed on WP, but it's still a blog which would generally but not always be a negative (someone should be able to quote the precise section, since I need to get some shut-eye, sorry). Harami2000 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't an RS and neither is elderofziyon for these kind of accusations (see WP:SOURCES) that relate to matters of fact. I think discussing this matter on talk is fine too if it helps direct people to search for reliable sources but simply repeating accusations and making section headings/statements that are based on an assumption of wrongdoing on the part of Reuters (or anyone else) is not okay. Things don't become relevant to article content decisions until they're covered by RS and a statements of fact can only come from RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok well it looks like they've now released the original uncropped first photo after bloggers complained but not the second. Faaaaaaamn (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The second picture released by Reuters is not the one they cropped, although it comes from the same set published by Hürriyet. It seems that elderofziyon.blogspot is more interested in being outraged than actually doing their homework. Still this is a complete non-issue: let the bloggers let off steam, while we try to write something more encyclopedic. Physchim62 (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

aside: With regards to the lack of RSs and being a "non-issue", there is now a formal complaint to Reuters from an Israeli government minister reported in a RS; q.v. Harami2000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SF Chronicle source

I've removed the statement "Israel's Gaza blockade legal, many scholars say" based on this source [4] in the lede to the legal section and the lede of the legal page. The reasons for this are the article makes no reference at all to the scope of their survey (numbers of people, countries, survey form, response proportion, level of expertise) and without this is not necessarily reliable. As it is an academic topic; per [[13]] For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources and also under academic consensus Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources regards, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You had no reason to remove it. The countries from which they came are not relevant per se and had we knew them it would change nothing. We don't have to get the survey details and we are not allowed to analys these ourselves. We regard the SF chronicle as RS and trust it for making the work properly. Above all, you made this revert without achiving consensus here first. Hence, you left me no other choice but to revert your revert. BTW, you could add short reservation that the SF didn't make public details about the survey method-but not to remove sourced content, espcially not when you didn't try to achive consensus first...Regards --Gilisa (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
That looked like a good reason to me.
I also question this: you left me no other choice but to revert your revert - were you unable to discuss Clovis Sangrail's removal on their talk page? Here? There's almost always a better alternative to reverting a revert.
We are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. We are encouraged to WP:REVERT. I'd also like to encourage WP:DISCUSSION (and maybe, just maybe, WP:BRD). Acknowledging the good faith of an editor who posts here their reasons for an edit is also to be encourgaed. TFOWRidle vapourings 08:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Israeli blockade is not supported by UN and international view. "Emphasizing the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings," UN Resolution 1860 (2009) U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is Illegal Many academics might claim it is legal, tough much more academician claims it is illegal. UN declared Israel should stop blockade immediately anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Then quote reliable secondary sources that say that. Clovis Sangrail's point (that academic topics should be not supported - directly or indirectly - by cites from academic studies) stands. We're not in the business of interpreting academic reports, and the "many scholars say" is not good. We should present the arguments and the counter-arguments, and leave the "many scholars say" nonsense to the tabloid press. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, there is no reason in what all of you three wrote here, to remove the source and what it says. Reservation is enough, more than that is POV pushing and censorship. As for the UN, it have nothing to do with the SF chronicle review of specialist opinion. And also, the UN called to lift the blockade following a vote, it have nothing with the international dry law. Therefore, it's different issue. --Gilisa (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ: As this is an encyclopedia we need verifiable facts. Sourced statements like "most scholars say" are weasel words need to be bounded to be verifiable, and the SF provides no bounds whatsovever (not even a date of survey). General unbounded weasel statements cannot be proven or disproven, so do not belong in an Encyclopedia. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Re-removed, this time there was no ref even. Again, this is a scholarly issue, and the source in question is RS in general but in this case fails the most basic scholarly standards ("Most" = how many?). Continued vigilance is needed. Homunq (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Section: Free Gaza Movement

The section Free Gaza Movement reflects Israeli point of view that materials with dual function are blocked into Gaza.

Israel prevents cement and other building materials from reaching Gaza, saying that although they have legitimate uses, it might be used to make smuggling tunnels for explosives and arms.

Indeed the motivation for Free Gaza Movement was to dispute Israels right to decide what is allowed and what is not. The ships was loaded with stuff banned by Israel such as Toys, A4 paper, Chocolate, etc. etc. which would not be permitted to enter if they were to be inspected by Israel .

Extended content
List of non-permissible items to Gaza
  1. Biscuits And Sweets
  2. Buoys
  3. Cardamom
  4. Cattle
  5. Cement
  6. Chicks
  7. Chocolate
  8. Coriander
  9. Cumin
  10. Dairies For Cowsheds
  11. Donkeys
  12. Dried Fruit
  13. Fabric (For Clothing)
  14. Flavor And Smell Enhancers
  15. Fishing Rods
  16. Fresh Meat
  17. Fruit Preserves
  18. Gas For Soft Drinks
  19. Ginger
  20. Glucose
  21. Goats
  22. Halva
  23. Hatcheries And Spare Parts For Hatcheries
  24. Heaters For Chicken Farms
  25. Heaters
  26. Horses
  27. Industrial Margarine
  28. Industrial Salt
  29. Iron
  30. Irrigation Pipe Systems
  31. Jam
  32. Musical Instruments
  33. Newspapers
  34. Notebooks
  35. Nutmeg
  36. Nylon Nets For Greenhouses
  37. Planters For Saplings
  38. Plaster
  39. Plastic/Glass/Metal Containers
  40. Potato Chips
  41. Razors
  42. Ropes For Fishing
  43. Ropes To Tie Greenhouses
  44. Sage
  45. Seeds And Nuts
  46. Sewing Machines And Spare Parts
  47. Size A4 Paper
  48. Spare Parts For Tractors
  49. Tar
  50. Tarpaulin Sheets For Huts
  51. Toys
  52. Various Fishing Nets
  53. Vinegar
  54. Wood For Construction
  55. Writing Implements

Source for list:

--Nevit (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In your view The section Free Gaza Movement reflects Israeli point of view that materials with dual function are blocked into Gaza. I'm not seeing it - which part in particular concerns you? TFOWRidle vapourings 10:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can not see the dual function of Pikachu's, drugs, A4 paper, chocolate, dried fruits, potato chips and hundreds of other materials on ships.

The section also heavily includes Israel's accusation of IHH to terror. Even IDF has retracted the claims but Wikipedia still insists.

--Nevit (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to see or even agree with Israel's view on the dual use of toys etc. All we need to do - and have done, as far as I can see - is provide both sides' view:
The ships were to carry what the organizers identified as 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid, with a value of $20 million, including food and medicine, and building materials such as cement which make up 4/5 of the cargo's gross weight and are banned by the blockade, to the Gaza Strip.
Israel prevents cement and other building materials from reaching Gaza, saying that although they have legitimate uses, it might be used to make smuggling tunnels for explosives and arms.
Organizers say that building materials are necessary to rebuild the infrastructure of Gaza that was seriously damaged in the 2008–2009 war.
It's very difficult to discuss what Israel believes without saying what Israel says it believes. Saying that Israel prevents cement because Israel says... is fine. It would only be a problem if the article was to say cement is... rather than Israel says "cement is...".
Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"Israel claims" would be equally accurate. Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As would "Israel states". However, we should avoid any implication that what Israel says is true ("states") or false ("claims") and simply report it neutrally. TFOWRidle vapourings 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of IHH connection to terror

The section also includes Israel's accusation of IHH connection to terror. Even IDF has already retracted the claims but Wikipedia still includes them. --Nevit (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Hasbara activists never say die...They will claim AQ even in ther face of evidence...HOWEVER this talk of alqaeda frames the terrorist argument, ignoring that israel was not only founded by terrorists, but uses terrorism to this day,..esp against the people of Gaza,eg with SDonic booms by jets in the airspace they control...Jalusbrian (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it says Israel has accused IHH of having close ties to Hamas, and being "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." I'd have thought that Israel's previous accusations about the IHH are relevant, though I'd recommend it should be made clear that Israel no longer believes their earlier claim about the IHH to be true. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Before I put anything in, is there any reason not to regard the Danish Institute of International Studies as a reliable source? On their page I find:

"the phenomenon of charitable front groups that provide support to Al-Qaida is by no means exclusively limited to the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, elsewhere in the Muslim world, other such entities have been established with near equal success – as in Turkey, with the socalled Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties, and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from other regional Islamic militant groups. IHH’s bureau in Istanbul was thoroughly searched, and its local officers were arrested. Security forces uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and a “jihad flag.” After analyzing seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.” According to a French intelligence report, the terrorist infiltration of IHH extended to its most senior ranks. The report, written by famed counterterrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere..." Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that IDF had could withdrawn allegations if they where reliable provable info. The ships where explored and some Pikachu's was found. --Nevit (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Four paragraphs on the "Auschwitz" back and forth accusations/denials?

Four entire paragraphs seems like an awful lot info on this one topic which really amounts to Israel produced an audio tape, and the activists call it a fraud.

I think the first paragraph is good. But I think most of the next three paragraphs could removed, and replaced with just one paragraph which covers these things:

  • Isareli journalist confirmation of radio transmission.
  • Huwaida Arraf's voice is on the recording, which she says indicates it's a fake.
  • Captain Denis Healey's rejection of it.


Are there any objection to cutting it down quite a bit?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It seems WP:UNDUE. It's a section on "initial contact", not "post-contact allegations of anti-Semitism and counter allegations of fraud". This should be summarised, and I've agree with your "just one paragraph" suggestion. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an example of having something sourced but editors disputing it so exceptional detail is provided to get it in then even more is given in an attempt to tone it down which actually gives it more weight. Give it a line and let it stay at that.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree most of it can go as irrelevant. Propose reducing to "Israel broadcast a tape of a radio exchange with an activist purportedly telling navy personnel to "Go back to Auschwitz". Huwaida Arraf and Captain Denis Healey have denied the taunting occured." with appropriate sources and, perhaps, more elegantly phrased? Misarxist (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the updated version was overcut, removing pertinent info particularly references to "9/11" and "Jihad" which could indicate that the intent of the mission (at least whomever was on the radio). I changed it back to show more full account of the radio exchange on the IDF tape, along with a paragraph of the denials of this account. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben-Yishai's account of boarding

On a related note, there's a paragraph and a half – unreferenced – concerning Ron Ben-Yishai's account of the boarding, which is surely excessive as he was never on the Mavi Marmara but instead on an IDF ship. Personally, I find it speaks volumes that the IDF should invite a "veteran war correspondant" to watch the action from their ship... Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

journalists embedded with a commando unit on a night honest are they gonna be? PLEASE Jalusbrian (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest (and this is only opinion) that we try and avoid "embedded journalists" for this section. It does look, though, that whoever worked on this section was striving for balance between the two viewpoints (the journalists on board the Mavi Marmara, and the journalists accompanying the IDF). Are there other journalists' accounts we could use, beside Ben-Yishai (IDF-embedded) and Elshayyal (Al Jazeera)? TFOWRidle vapourings 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There's not much in English that I've seen. I dispute the idea that Al-Jazeera should be ruled out for bias: that would be tantamount to ruling out Ben-Yishai just because he's Jewish, ie, obviously inacceptable. There is this report from the Turkish state news agency, who had a reporter and a cameraman aboard. Physchim62 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference - people aboard the flotilla were arrested, and there are a side in this event, even if they are reporters. Ben-Yishai is not a part in this conflict - he was not a part of any of the fighting sides. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the journalists in this section were "embedded". Some were embedded with the IDF on their boats, and some were embedded with the activists on their boats.
And this was very newsworthy (though not headline news) before the deaths happened. It's no surprise at all that Israel invited some journalists along. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
My point was: the journalists with IDF were there to report the news. The journalists with the flotilla were there to create the news. Keep in mind: the flotilla was created as a media event (it does not take 6 ships and 600 people to deliver this little aid, that could have been delivered in a lot of other different ways). ShalomOlam (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not unusual for the IDF to do so. What's your point? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the practice is common outside the IDF, too. I don't know what the "speaks volumes" comment refers to; there is, however, an issue around sourcing and too much data. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, "speaks volumes" refers to notion that the Israeli's had benevolent intentions when commandeering the boats since they were willing to have their actions scrutinized up close by a reporter free to report whatever they wanted. Someone with malevolent intentions obviously wouldn't want their activity closely watched. As far as including this reporters accounts, I think its particularly important. A reporter on one of the Israeli ships would provide a different perspective and could describe what was occurring on the Israeli ships. Any other such reporter could not. I also think there is a serious plausibility problem with many of the reporters on the flotilla boats. Many of the stories being reported are conflicting and there seems to be in many cases a desire to outright lie. Its going to be difficult to differentiate the unbiased reporting from the reporters who are on-board because they agree with the flotilla's cause.Chhe (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Lol! Absolutely R-O-F-L! If the IDF took embedded reporters on their ships, it's because they expected there to be something to report. A simple coastguard action is hardly frontpage news. The reporters would see what they were allowed to see and hear what they were allowed to hear. After all, the IDF has not hesitated to kill inconvenient reporters in the past, and did so again (by several accounts) on the Mavi Marmara. Physchim62 (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
So the IDF 'expected' a good report for the journalists before the ships set out from Haifa; that's probably why they chose to attack at night and at the level of Haifa, rather than waiting for the ships to move nearer to Ashdod an perform a more normal coastguard action in daylight. This was meant from the start to be a big media event, otherwise the IDF would have waited, just as the had done with every other humanitarian convoy and as they did with the Rachel Corrie. Physchim62 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reagrding "a reporter free to report whatever they wanted. Someone with malevolent intentions obviously wouldn't want their activity closely watched." Somehow the part where the IDF confiscated all audio-visual material, then editied the material themselves prior to releassing it, coupled with the placing journalists incommunicado -effectively preventing them from offering dissenting views- negates that statement for me.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken O'Keefe

I've noticed some articles circulating about a video of an "ex-marine" who disarmed 3(?) Israeli commandos during the raid. Link I was wondering if there is any legitimacy to this? --Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legitimacy to do what? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Did it happen? --Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned exactly the same quote last night (eurotime): Le Monde picked up on it yesterday. The original source is the Anatolia news agency. Physchim62 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What you just said has me thoroughly confused. --Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just saying that the quote has been cited by a respectable secondary source, as I mentioned above: two respectable secondary sources, in fact, since it already passed Anatolia's vetting before appearing in Le Monde. Physchim62 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so it is confirmed that it happened?--Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Hoped this wouldn't be required but it is. There are many ways of looking at this event, increasingly the article is reflecting primarily the Israeli narrative. This does not serve readers, tagging so at least they know there are issues. Details in most of the above sections, or editors can add them here. RomaC (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What, in your mind, reflects the Israeli narrative? And how whould you suggest to re-write it? ShalomOlam (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Israeli narrative is the version/interpretation/descriptors/causality/relative weight/images/data put forth by the IDF/Israel. Some examples of recent edits: the word "aid" removed from first-reference to the GFF; "pro-Palestinian activists" replacing the wider description of those on board; an "activists physically clashed...were killed" causality inference; removal of cause of death (multiple gunshots at close range); "according to...a journalist...activists attacked troops with live rounds" which is not supported by the source. That's the first graph alone. How to re-write? What would you suggest? RomaC (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As many comments above and on archived talk pages. This would also benefit pro-Israeli views, which may believe the article do not blame the Fleet enough. --Nevit (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • One example that comes to mind from this is that I've several times inserted in the lead a description that the international reaction to the attack included widespread outrage (for which there are ten WP:RS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10), but the text has been removed by various editors within minutes, as if people would find it difficult to accept that the reaction is that of outrage. --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Daily, I concur. The perspective/reaction inside Israel is qualitatively very different from the perspective/reaction in the rest of the world. An interesting question is: should article content be determined by a dispassionate survey of all available RS, or must the perspective/reaction inside Israel be given the same/equal weight as the perspective/reaction in the rest of the world? At present, it is neither of these -- the perspective/reaction inside Israel dominates the article. RomaC (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there are severe POV issues with the article, and POV pushing is hurting the neutrality of the article. That needs to be fixed. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

article name

I think "Gaza flotilla raid" should be renamed to "Free Gaza flotilla". Since "raid" is not the accurate word to use. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest then? There was no consensus for "attack" last time I proposed it, and "massacre" would obviously not gain support. Physchim62 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Free Gaza flotilla ;-)
There's a subtle difference for the article, depending on the name: ShalomOlam's suggestion - "Free Gaza flotilla" - implies it's everything about the flotilla, including the ships not in the raided convoy. "Gaza flotilla raid" implies we should focus on those ships in the raided convoy.
Personally, I think it's too soon for yet another name change debate, but I tend to always say that ;-)
TFOWRidle vapourings 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about "Gaza Flotilla incident"? --Bentaguayre (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was pointed out that the mechanical failures on some boats before hand, were also "incidents". 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal in English to talk about a "police raid", so I do see what the problem is. I would prefer "attack", but I seem to be in a minority among Bibipologists. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Raid definition to help decision:
Look up raid in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  1. A hostile or predatory incursion; an inroad or incursion of mounted men; a sudden and rapid invasion by a cavalry force; a foray.
  2. An attack or invasion for the purpose of making arrests, seizing property, or plundering; as, a raid of the police upon a gambling house; a raid of contractors on the public treasury.

Attack, Raid, Incident all OK for me. Although incident has a more neutral tone. It does not blame either side. It does not time frame the article with the hours of attack.

--Nevit (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Article names are just based on WP:NAME. Accuracy, dictionaries, arguments from first principals etc don't come into it. Can't we wait a few weeks ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The focus here is on the clash and loss of life, so I oppose "Free Gaza flotilla" as per TFOWR. I think "Gaza Flotilla incident" is too vague. Gaza flotilla clash is the most neutral and accurate description in my opinion, as raid implies an element of surprise and one-sided attack. But the media have favored the word "raid," Israeli media included:

So for now, as per Sean, I begrudgingly support the current title, Gaza flotilla raid.  &#151;Rafi  15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm open to "Free Gaza flotilla" - I just think it's too soon, and "Free Gaza flotilla" would potentially mean expanding the scope of this article (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but we've already split off several new articles from this one). TFOWRidle vapourings 15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I meant to refer to one of your specific points and not your general position. Should have been more specific.  &#151;Rafi  15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Raid" is not the correct term. The most accurate and specific term is "interdiction": To damage, interrupt or destroy enemy lines of communication. - To invoke a prohibition against contact with another. This is exactly what happened. These ships were interdicted at sea. By contrast, when Hamas crosses the Israeli boarder and captures an Israeli soldier *that* is a "raid". To that end, we might consider Free Gaza interdiction Rklawton (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is not the correct comment. It doesn't refer to the WP:NAME policy, the only thing that matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
..and just to clarify my position on the article name, I don't care as long as it complies with the NAME policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interseted in the past naming discussion arguements / vote, see here: Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Rename or move. Apologies if someone's already added this Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People, there were very extensive discussions and a voting procedure regarding the name of the article, and there was very wide consensus on this one. Please check the archives. --386-DX (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about foreign-language sources

We are discussing the foreign-language sources and sourcing in general on Pages in need of translation into English. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey and Iran consider Naval escorts

Information on Erdoğan's plan visit to Gaza is false as Foreign Minister Davutoğlu stated. This is the Turkish source Source.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerian (talkcontribs) 15:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Boarding section

Boarding section:

The boarding section goes in too much detail, without answering some fundamental ones.

  • Who authorized boarding : Gov. vs. mil.
  • Who authorized the use of force: Gov. vs. mil
  • Why the intervention was done in international waters?
  • Did Israel considered the option to Stop vessels and not board?
  • Did Israel requested permission to board from Captains?
  • Did Israel requested permission to board from States who owned the ships?
  • Did the boarding occurred against the consent or did it occurred consent status indetermined?
  • Why side boarding failed? (It is known that side boarding requires larger or at least equal size vessel. )
  • Did Israel considered boarding on captain deck instead of crowded areas?

--Nevit (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WIKI Article should contain what is known to be true, not what is unknown or unanswered. There are other web-sites on-line, for posting these kind of questions. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
All of these have known answers. They are not unknown. They are excluded from article, while many details are gone in detailed. --Nevit (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla Organisation

The article is being vandalised again: "Unlike previous attempts, this flotilla, the largest sent by far, was dominated not by the Free Gaza Movement, which sent only one small passenger boat, but by three ships sent by an Islamic aid group from Turkey, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH).[21] Israel has accused IHH of having close ties to Hamas, and being "sympathetic to al-Qaeda."[47][48] Further, the IHH is a member of the Union of Good[49], listed by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terror-supporting entity[50]."

This is not true. The five other ships in the flotilla, including MV Rachel Corrie were sent by the Free Gaza Movement. IHH is also a part of the Free Gaza Movement, as reconfirmed in the movement's most recent press release[14]. Furthermore, US State Department spokesman has confirmed that they do not see IHH as a terrorist organisation. Could somebody please revert these accusations? --386-DX (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Even IDF has retracted the claim. #Accusation_of_IHH_connection_to_terror But once a press release is made there is little meaning in retracting the claim. Harm is done. It goes into hundreds on websites and newspapers around the world.

I suggest a section about IDF as reliable source. Including subdivisions about

  1. Destroying the evidence.
  2. Distributing edited videos.
  3. Distributing pictures related to other incidences.
  4. Recruiting users to promote pro-Israeli view on internet.

--Nevit (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, esp as the Hasbara crowd have been very active here. Jalusbrian (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Messy sentences in the lead

The lead currently devotes several messy sentences to a minor point:

After initial denials[citation needed], passengers said that they fought the Israeli commandos and disarmed some of them,[5] but defended their actions as self-defense saying their ship was boarded by a military force in international waters.[6] According to Israeli authorities and a journalist travelling with Israeli forces, activists attacked its troops with live ammunition from pistols wrested from soldiers, a statement denied by the activists and other reporters present.[7][8]

The Haaretz article is the only source given here that addresses the issue in any detail. I propose replacing all this with one sentence,

Different accounts disputed whether the activists turned the soldiers' pistols on the soldiers.[5]

and leaving the details to the main body. The activists now claim they threw the soldier's guns into the sea; I haven't tracked how their story has changed, but this proposed sentence has always been true. It also avoids WP:OR.

It's also been established that at least two (maybe three) commandos suffered gunshot wounds, so I propose we add

IDF sources said that they also came under live fire of a type not used by the IDF;[9] Turkish officials rejected this as impossible.[10] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[11][12]

I think this summarizes the dispute concisely, fairly, and in line with RS. (I still need to format the refs properly.) The messy details are left to the main body.

 &#151;Rafi  20:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the first statement is an improvement, but the second one leaves out important details. I would say the second one should read:
IDF sources said that they also came under live fire of a type not used by the IDF;[9] However, Turkish customs officials said that they checked and cleared the vessel for weapons.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[13][14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasShaikh (talkcontribs) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Support for the first sentence improvement. --Kslotte (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer leaving out the details ManasShaikh added because they're in the body, but I'm willing to compromise. How about

Different accounts disputed whether the activists turned the soldiers' pistols on the soldiers.[5] IDF sources said that they also came under live fire of a type not used by the IDF;[9] Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.[15] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[16][17]

"However" implies judgment of credibility. "And cleared" could be read as saying weapons were found and removed.  &#151;Rafi  21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sources for IDF gunshot wounds, I see only the IDF-embedded Ron Ben Yishai on this. Also source on the 9mm, is it just the "soldiers said" story? Have we no doctors or official statement on any of this? Also would be good to determine whether disarming = turned guns against soldiers and found casings = came under fire, do any RS say the latter? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's all in the article already, but I'll defend it here:
Turned guns against soldiers: JPost [15] and IDF [16] have two commando's accounts, plus this video [17]. Secondary RS's are in the article.
Gunshot wounds: The Jerusalem Post quotes a commando's eyewitness account [18] and a hospital doctor [19]. It's also been mentioned by Israeli officials who visited the soldiers.
Casings: You're technically right about this one. Here's the quote from the "We had no choice" JPost article (first link in this post):
Nevertheless, the IDF suspects that the group did have some guns of its own. Israeli forensic experts who examined the ship found casings belonging to a weapon that was not used by the commandos, and the Turkish captain of the ship later told the IDF that the “mercenaries” threw their weapons overboard after the commandos took control of the vessel.
Bullet casings do imply fired bullets, but we probably shouldn't make any leaps. So maybe change the wording to IDF investigators suspect that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish...  &#151;Rafi  22:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll correct that for tense and pull it together:
Different accounts disputed whether the activists turned the soldiers' pistols on the soldiers.[5] IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF;[9] Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.[15] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[18][19]
I'll make the edit soon if there are no objections.  &#151;Rafi  22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF investigators CLAIM --Severino (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM. The source says "suspect" anyway.  &#151;Rafi  23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, agree we should not make leaps. I see a story with an anonymous source saying "he saw three of his commanders lying wounded – one with a gunshot wound to the stomach and another with a gunshot wound to the knee". I see a source saying "activists succeeded in stealing a handgun from one of the soldiers" but I have yet to see a source that clearly puts this together. How do we know this was not a case of friendly fire (about half the IDF deaths in Cast Lead were from friendly fire). Also the opinions of an anonymous "Sgt. S" should be treated with caution, for example he also said "These were without a doubt terrorists". The source with the identified doctor is better but again also says only gunshot wounds, which could be friendly fire. Finally, it raises red flag issues that this is only in the J-Post, (which produced the "We Con the World" video). Where are the non-partisan news sources that we can use to verify the extraordinary J-Post claims? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

reaction in Israel: parody

The following video is a parody, created by a group of Israelis, in reaction to the way the media covers the flotilla story:

The gourp created the above video state on their web-site ( that they are reporters and writers, that they think the Israeli press is not professional enough, and wish to demonstrate this via parody (about Israeli press). ShalomOlam (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

thats already mentioned in the article about the reactions..--Severino (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently the video is by a deputy managing editor of the J-Post. RomaC (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli sources saying their forces boarded after the radio contact

"Israeli sources said their forces boarded the ships after the flotilla refused calls to change their course from Gaza." I think we can change this to "Israeli forces boarded the ships after the flotilla refused calls to change their course from Gaza". Neither the IDF, nor the activists, nor the news reports dispute that the flotilla was contacted and demanded to change course before the raid. --386-DX (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there was certainly radio contact, as the ships were about to cross the level of the Lebanon–Israel border according to FreeGaza. The "raid" took place just south of the level of Haifa. That's way before the ships would have had to "change course" to choose between Ashdod and Gaza. Indeed most "raids" by the IDF take place much further south, and it's a matter of speculation why they were in such a hurry to do this one, at night, so far north. Physchim62 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I would guess that the "at night" part explains the timing. Had the flotilla continued, it would have reached either port before sundown. Rklawton (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Support 386-DX. This is indeed not disputed.  &#151;Rafi  04:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Another vote of Support. It's a good change. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Easy one. No dispute about this, as dx says.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection and 1RR

It seems that the article is no longer semi-protected. I'm a bit concern with having it unprotected and at same having WP:1RR in force. It easily becomes hard to defend the article from misleading information, when there is risk for block if the change is revert. --Kslotte (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this article has already been the subject of edit wars even with the 1RR. It should continue to be protected Zuchinni one (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, there are still crucial issued to be ironed out in the article, and it is still being subject to vandalism and arbitrary reverts ignoring the discussing on the talk page. Do you know how to request an extension to the protection?--386-DX (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree as well: WP:RPP. Physchim62 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for semi-protection to be renewed. Physchim62 (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Result: "Declined. I can't see a problem with it at the moment. Please ask again if that situation changes." --Kslotte (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done Seems to have protected by an another admin anyway. --Kslotte (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

People on board

Isn't it WP:Notable that peace activists and journalists were on board in addition to pro-Palestinian activists? Should that go in the lead? Or is it not confirmed they were on the Mavi Marmara? Zuchinni one (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Activists "agree"?

From the page:

Activists on board agree that there was resistance but say it was not organized; rather the Israeli helicopters, ships and gunfire "created the atmosphere that people wanted to defend themselves."[24]

I think this is wrong. Early reports by activists claimed there was no [20] or only passive resistance, and Nidal Hejazi states that he was "on board, making sure everybody kept their positions" [21] I think a claim of agreement needs to back this up with more than one source. Ketil (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for this, including the flotilla organizers & Al Jazeera journalists who confirmed that Israeli soldiers were taken captive. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think perhaps I misunderstood the text, and that it tries to say that "Activists on board concede that...". Clearly there are contradictory accounts, so they do not "agree". Ketil (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with the very large Mavi Marmara boarding section

Currently the section is split up into the accounts of different groups. But this is an encyclopedia and eventually we need to have this section stop being personal accounts and start being verified facts.

Now that more information has come out many of the accounts are backing each other up. For example this interview with an Al-Jazeera reporter confirmed some of the IDF video footage & stories:

This is not a complete list ... just a sample.


Some of the reports that remain unconfirmed:

  • Use of bullet proof vests by passengers
  • The passengers trying to take down the helicopter by tying the abseil rope to the ship
  • That passengers had firearms prior to the Israeli boarding (they claim to have found shell casings and sights that don't fit Israeli weapons)
  • Use of stun grenades by passengers (although the video seems pretty clear I have not seen any non-Israeli RS that mentions this)
  • "Go back to Auschwitz" claims
  • Israel denying medical aid to wounded (although considering this request seems to have occurred during the fighting, it would not surprise me if it was true)
    • Some reports say that wounded refusde to receive medical aid on board from Israeli medics. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Can you provide a reference Zuchinni one (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
        • As far as I know some heavy wounded did not treated immediately. They said they waited hours to get medical treatment. On the other hand after capture some wounded activists declined medical treatement in Israel territory. TV reports are nice but hard to reference. Kasaalan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Israeli soldiers firing from the helicopter down at the passengers
  • Paintball guns used a "glass type" ammunition
  • Use of live fire by passengers [recently moved from confirmed as per discussion below] Zuchinni one (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you share source for that. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
BBC Here: Zuchinni one (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find any solid proof on the article. One soldier claimed 1 activist was holding rifle. No rifle found. did any commando has any wound by rifle bullet. Kasaalan (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In the ref there is a statement from a journalist who witnessed the events, which directly supports this. There is also now confirmation from the flotilla organizers that passengers seized weapons from the soldiers.
Perhaps the seizure should be confirmed and the use of the weapons by passengers reverted to unconfirmed. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Another related ref: Zuchinni one (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Activists claimed they took the rifles, however they throw them off to the sea. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Israel is covering up casualties? At some point, a reporter or activist claimed that "more were missing". Any names?
  • Casualties were caused in close quarter combat. This is the IDF viewpoint, but articles about the autopsy results seem to vaguely imply this was not the case. Were any casualties caused by a firearm different from IDF service pistols? E.g. casualties caused by live fire from helicopters (claimed by the Al Jazeera on-board reporter) should be easy given autopsies, or by inspection of the ship deck. kzm (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with figuring out what has happened is that the IDF confiscated all the video they could find of the event. While it seems fairly undisputed that the footage is legitimate, the timing of when the events occurred is in question, and footage that might support passenger POV has not been released. This means that it can be difficult to confirm passenger claims, since the IDF seems to have all the hard evidence.

It seems to me that the individual accounts are important, especially because that is the majority of evidence that the passengers have. But if we leave this section grouped as different accounts it will just remain impossible to manage from an editor's point of view, and impossible to read easily from a visitor's point of view.

I suggest that we do the following:

  1. Change the format of this section into Confirmed Facts and Unconfirmed Reports (or different wording if you prefer). Each of these can have all the associated references attached to it. (It might be best to use a list format for the time being and change it to prose later). The list format will also make it easy for people to know what needs confirmation and prevent duplication.
  2. Create a new article devoted to the personal accounts of the passengers, journalists, and soldiers involved and provide a link.
  3. The link to the personal accounts article should explain that for the time being the IDF has most of the 'hard evidence' that shows what has happened and they have not released it all. Thus it has been easier to confirm IDF reports than passenger reports.

Please share your thoughts :)

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall it sounds like a very good and solid idea to me. I'm just not sure about the word "confirmed". If it's "confirmed", confirmed by whom? I think "Known Facts" might be better. Or perhaps "Undisputed Facts", but that's not perfect either. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I like your suggestion for 'undisputed facts' I think its more NPOV :) Zuchinni one (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

General questions then. If we don't answer these now, it'll come up very soon after adding the section. How would you propose determining what is "undisputed"?

  • The same article which mentions "90 seconds after boarding" also says that soldiers were shot and beaten unconscious _before_ S. pulled out his weapons. Is that also "undisputed"?
  • The article says "contrary to earlier reports", is that a strong suggestion that there is/was some dispute. How solid does the new info have to be to become "undisputed"?
  • Is one reference enough to determine something is "undisputed"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Condensing section "Legal assessments"

We have three section in Legal assesments. Since we have issues that the article is WP:TOOLONG, I propose that this section should be condensed shorter (about half the size) into sub-article Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid should contain. The question is what is essential and what should go? --Kslotte (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some condensing done. A few sentence shorter. --Kslotte (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
One of my changes was reverted. We don't need Cuban Missile Crisis comparisons in main article. We have a sub-article Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid for that. I suggest to remove the sentence. --Kslotte (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems better. --Kslotte (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine w/paring, while still conveying sense. Suggest: "They also said that they were comparable to other unrelated blockades, such as in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the first Gulf War." I think we can afford the very few extra words, which provide much greater context. Good bang for the buck, so to speak.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but isn't running a military blockade in itself an act of war if any resistance is offered? For example, if somebody wanted to run a blockade of Boston in 1700s, or Cuba in Cuban Missle Crisis, or Haiphong harbor in 1972, would it matter if it was an aid ship full of peaceful unarmed activist and aid workers if they were stopped by any of the respective navies? If the Iranian Navy wants to deliver aid to Gasa (which they now plan to do) with sufficient force to overrun any Israeli patrol boats, who would be the aggressor? Bachcell (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo bias

There were nine aid workers murdered and 30 injured yet we have five pictures of Israeli armed men injured or being beaten and NONE of the 40 humanitarian workers killed or injured. This is WP:NPOV and balance, Wiki style? Given the casualties balance might be four pictures of the victims of the massacre and one of the killers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any pictures available to us of the casualties? If so, we should definitely start adding them (and removing some of the current images). Note, though, that some of the wounded soldier images come from the IHH and other non-Israel sources. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Everyone agrees that the "aid workers" were attacked. The most controversial and disagreed about issue is whether the soldiers were attacked - so the images cover this aspect. Even the veracity of the images have become an issue, hence the variety. So no, that's not bias. I agree though, if we could find an image of a dead "aid worker" - I think we should include it. Rklawton (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much per above: it was in doubt (lack of good RSs) for a /long/ time that the soldiers were non-trivially wounded and captured at all and it was only several days belatedly that I found another Al Jazeera account which helped to resolve that controversy ( ). No-one ever doubted that passengers on the Mavi Marmara were killed. Yes, I can see value in adding images passenger-side /if/ available but requiring some form of pro rata accounting or removal of images simply because of lack of "numerical balance" might also be seen to be POV as there is no contention on those killings regardless of availability or non-availability of suitable images. 02c only, anyhow. Harami2000 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody was murdered. If you think otherwise, than you don't know the meaning of the word "murder". Same goes to "massacre". ShalomOlam (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they were murdered. Forensic reports, as well as multiple eyewitness accounts reveal that some people were shot execution style, from very close range and multiple times. --386-DX (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(Multiple times isn't exactly "execution style", is it?) The wounds could also be the result of chaotic close-quarters fighting. But I haven't read the accounts you refer to, only the reports from the autopsy. Ketil (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you have one

--Bentaguayre (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much undue wight on the IDF pov through the images, either many of the images are removed, or we add some non-IDF created images too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree the pictures give the impression of bias. --John (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
User Maashatra11 has removed two photos released by IHH claiming that they are "nonreliable, unverifiable" whereas these photos have been published by numerous international newspapers and media organisations around the world. Please report them for violating the policy of "1 revert per 24 hours". I don't know how. --386-DX (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
So is anyone going to remove the images? As it stands it is a one sided portrayal of the events. Mo ainm~Talk 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The two of the removed images were then added back. I don't think there is a need to remove any of them any more. We seem to have a good balance. The other thing is, there are no released images of the passengers after the raid, since the cameras, computers, and the storage equipment was seized by Israel. --386-DX (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons???? funny???

This section doesn't contain any information or useful discussion. Is it okay to delete it in order to trim this talk page? Ketil (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the archive processing take care of it. --Kslotte (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What weapons are these? Kitchen weapons and plumber weapons???? This whole operation take several hours.Israeli commandos take everyone as hostage for more than 5 hours and sit every hostage from his legs.No one go to drink water or go to wash room for more than 5 hours.During this 5 hours they collect all these types of weapons from the ship and set them on one place and take a picture. Totally unacceptable weapons. Modern weapons are not small Kitchen knife and plumber tools.Modern weapons are assault guns like Ak or M16, etc. This ship contains several VIP, Parlimentarians of Germany, Swizerland,etc, etc, NGOs and several other big persons.Not only Muslims are on that ship but also hundreds of Christians, Buddhas, Hindus and Jews are also on that ship.And they to to Gaza to give them Aid.because IDF stop everyway of Gaza.Gaza is now a Gail.So international countries supply food to Gaza. And one important resistance is not terrorism.Resistance is right to every of that nation which is occupied by a powerful Afghanistan in 1980 when Russia attack, India after British conquer, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cold weapons are weapons. There was already a discution about this above. You are welcome to read it. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
By weapons are meant guns or knives. But as we know no israelis were killed, and in contrast to the Israelis, wounded commandos were tended by the humanitarian aid group...The contrast is revealing. Jalusbrian (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Weapons when used, certainly, but not taken on there as weapons: the sort of thing I might use against a burglar if I had it to hand. The Hürriyet photos show a bag of onions as a weapon—somehow the IDF managed to miss that one on their search of the ship! Physchim62 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
These are Kitchen knifes and plumber tools.Dont you think so.
And one thing Palastein freedom movements dont use these smallest weapons.If they use these weapons then they cant get freedom.They use modern assault weapons.
And one important thng that all those ships are full of food, and other supplies for Gaza peoples.
I think israeli commandos find these weapons from the kitchen.Then they throw all the stuff so called weapons on one place and take a picture.Their are 5 ships full of supplies, not weapons.And some come from Euroup.Their are also several generalist on the ship.5 generalist from my country Pakistan.These generalists also fear when they saw that israli boats comming.So they also pick up buckets full of water and throw water on the boats.Actually they dont want israeli to enter the ship otherwise innocent peoples killed by israeli soldiers.
This raid is violation of human rights, violation of law of international waters.
Thats correct that passengers of ships throw stones and water on israeli boats because the passenger knows that if israeli soldiers come inside the ship, they kill innocent people as it happen.
Only one weapon according to passengers and that is a weapon similar to a toy.I dont know what that weapon called.Anyways i tell the shape.A wood in ""Y"" shape.In upper ends rubber band is fixed and you can throw stone by this toy weapon.That toy weapon is also used by Palasteni civilians in protest against israel.They throw small stones on israeli soldiers by using this toy weapon.While israeli soldiers as reaction they fire bullets from their M-16 on the civilians which kill and wound several civilians.If you visit Palastein then you also say that israel is a terrorist country.I saw several videos in which forion generalist stop isreli soldiers to fire on Palasteni civilians.Watch this video.An American generalist stop israeli soldiers to fire on Palasteni civilian.
Their are millions of videos in which israeli soldiers killed innocent civilians.Israeli behievious on foreigners is also worst.I saw that on National geographic.A documentary on Palastein.When cameraman and and his team life freely in Palastein.When they go to border they see a warzone bewteen israeli soldiers and Palasteni civilians.Palasteni civilians collect food and other supplies which come from the whole world.While israel fire on those civilians.The story is too much long.When the cameraman and the team go to israel an israeli soldier enter the bus in which the team is sitting.He slap on the cameraman and say him to off the camera.Cameraman do what he says.This incident really make me so much anger.
Anyways every devil has pheron, germans, tribe lood and tribe add(tribes in Arab and Africa in BC ages.So israel will also end.

this last comment seem to origin from a fake who pretends to be (pro-) palestinian..-Severino (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why you want to stop duscussion?Is supporting good is now a sin? is talking against Dajjal is now a sin?Is their no freedom of speech?Have you want to lock our mouth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of these objects can be classified as weapons if only MacGyver use them. Kavas (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's very interesting-I guess that almost anyone I know is such MacGyver, no wonder that this show is antique. Please cease with all of the OR you are making here. --Gilisa (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

by the way i remember the first israeli claims shortly after the attack against the ship and the killings, according to which the activists had firearms with them on bord and also that on the freight for gaza were such...--Severino (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This israeli claim is totally based on lie.The activists have only small stones and a toy.I dont know what the toy named but that toy shape is ""Y"".They use that toy to throw rock on israeli terrorists.
If activists have firearms then they kill several israeli soldiers because activists on ship is more than 600.
But actually israeli soldiers wounded.Wounded is because of the small stones which activist throw on israeli soldiers to push them away.
Anyways israel want any excuse, so they use this unbelievable excuse.
Think again.Dont believe on any israeli claim because their mostly claims are based on lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Having achieved their objective the israelis still need to spin the story to their advantage...hence the embedded journos, the story of their being attacked by 'jihadis', the fearsome crew bristling with 'weapons'...Theyre so used to spreadin lies they are getting careless. Jalusbrian (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum. This is a dictuion about how to make the article more accurate and neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Jalusbrian, their is no jihadis on the ship and no weapon like AK-47 etc.Looks like you make your own story which based on lie.Those are ships which have aid to Gaza for last several years.And now the people courage is full.They say that they again aid to Gaza and this time they have hundreds of journalist too to make video if israeli attack.I saw the people courage on a Geo tv program Capital talk.Even jews also hate israel after this incient.Those jews said that they are against zionest goverenment of israel.
Israel's ally also against this incident.India.Dead the reaction of india on this incident.Indian priminister also against this incident.
Many peoples on youtube which are before incident, suporting israel, but after incident, theose people become against israel.
This incident make the whole world angry against israel.Its all because foreigners killed in international waters.At last israel actual face appears on stage.As israel killed thousands of civilians in Gaza but no one respond so much but now as 9 foreigners killed by israeli forces in international waters, so this become so popular incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You are right about one thing: the flotilla was mainly about being a media event, and not an aid convoy. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you dont understand what i right there.There was a few generalist in this ship this time.Others are VIP people.NOG's, parliamentarians of Switzerland, Germany, etc, etc.Senior people of other country and several other VIP people.Actually ship attract everyone.Look at this picture.
Anyways those a few generalist including one from Pakistan make a video in which those Israeli boats come.All passengers pick up buckets full of water and throw water on boats.So Israeli cant enter ship.During this, Israeli commandos land of ship by helicopter.Then those passengers throw rocks by using Y shape toy.
Israeli make hostage all of those passengers for more than 5 hours.During this period Israeli killed some passengers and beaten almost every passenger.Then Israeli soldiers send almost all to jail.Where they held for dozens of hours.
All those passengers are extremely angry.Their reaction is extreme.Not only Muslims but also Christians and Jews on that boat also have extreme angry.After buried a Turkish passenger who killed in this Israeli terrorism, a christian from Britan make a speech in Turkey, warn Israel that next time we have dozens of ships and hundreds of thousands peoples are on those ships.You(Israel) cant stop us to aid Gaza.
Some other VIP peoples (including several Jews) said that they do everything in their power to broke the siege of Gaza and aid Gaza freely. (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you dont understand what i right there.There was a few generalist in this ship this time.Others are VIP people.NOG's, parliamentarians of Switzerland, Germany, etc, etc.Senior people of other country and several other VIP people.Actually ship attract everyone.Look at this picture.
Anyways those a few generalist including one from Pakistan make a video in which those Israeli boats come.All passengers pick up buckets full of water and throw water on boats.So Israeli cant enter ship.During this, Israeli commandos land of ship by helicopter.Then those passengers throw rocks by using Y shape toy.
Israeli make hostage all of those passengers for more than 5 hours.During this period Israeli killed some passengers and beaten almost every passenger.Then Israeli soldiers send almost all to jail.Where they held for dozens of hours.
All those passengers are extremely angry.Their reaction is extreme.Not only Muslims but also Christians and Jews on that boat also have extreme angry.After buried a Turkish passenger who killed in this Israeli terrorism, a christian from Britan make a speech in Turkey, warn Israel that next time we have dozens of ships and hundreds of thousands peoples are on those ships.You(Israel) cant stop us to aid Gaza.
Some other VIP peoples (including several Jews) said that they do everything in their power to broke the siege of Gaza and aid Gaza freely.

Little Green Footballs do it again!

So much for some of media sources neutrality regarding the raid [22]. --Gilisa (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in previous section, above (now with RS to Jerusalem Post for formal Israeli government minister complaint) but LGF itself is not a RS. As to "do it again", I'm sure plenty of other people managed to see for themselves, too, thanks! :) Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I know it's not a RS for itself, but it's avery famous and heared blog. And what starts there get quickly to RS...--Gilisa (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Reuters did the cropping? As far as I can tell, they only did the publishing. If all they received were the cropped images, then the censorship didn't originate with them. I'm thinking LGF dropped the ball on this one. Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If LGB could get the original images, which were taken by the foltilla passengers or by journalists that were on it but not by the IDF, then I've grave doubts that Reuters couldn't put their hands on them as well. During the second Lebanon war, back in 2006, same accusation was made by LGB against Reuters and eventually Reuters had to admit that the photos been through heavy editing (then of Israeli F-16 in attack position over the city of Beirut) but the guilty was Reuters photographer in Lebanon and the agency fired him after fact. It maybe similar issue here, but I doubt that this time it's only one men guilt. --Gilisa (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is WP:OFFTOPIC... --Kslotte (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

::You're right, let's stay with this Israel have complaint on bias reporting, that's very much in line with the topic. It's not WP:OFFTOPIC--Gilisa (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award from the Jerusalem Post in 2005".........(and it seems it has deserved the price)--20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So Little Green Fascists is for sure NOT a valid source Jalusbrian (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalusbrian, if so-I wonder why Reuters appologized again[23]. And I have never had any problems with "Fascists" of this kind. I consider your comment as provocative. --Gilisa (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead, shot in close range

The discussion has been moved to keep things organized.

Please, don't move the sections. Talk page should behave as a talk page. --Kslotte (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal of journalist Ben-Yishai

It seems that there were some recent edits where all mentions of the eyewitness journalist Ben-Yishai, who was traveling with Israeli forces were removed.

However there are no RS to back up these changes. Can anyone find some RS to back this up, or should we revert the edits?

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which specific changes are you referring to? --386-DX (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't find them all, but for example we previously had a discussion about using the wording "traveling with Israeli forces" in the lead. That is gone. And here: a user claims that he was not an eyewitness:
Zuchinni one (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that [the lead sentence] was me, there's a discussion about this above as well, but he was not an eyewitness to what went on on the ship: he was on an IDF ship all the time the disputed events were going on. There's no need for that sentence in the lead and, as it was written, it was misleading, so I simply removed it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure he was an eyewitness? The attack was carried out at night and filmed from the helicopters using night vision cameras. The news story doesn't mention if he was actually an eyewitness. His news report says "All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests and were armed with either bats, slingshots, metal bars, knives or stun grenades" whereas it is clearly evident from the recorded videos that this was not the case. It seems like most of his news report consists of information relayed to him by the soldiers during or after the attack. --386-DX (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The (competing) BBC explicitly says that journalist Ben Yishai was an eyewitness, and that his account is the best account of the events. The best account so far of what happened has come from Ron Ben Yishai, a reporter with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, who was an eyewitness. [24] Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the BBC story was published on the morning of June 2nd, before any of the detained passengers were released by Israel. He was an eyewitness in the sense that he witnessed the raid, but there is no account of him being an eyewitness to the events that took place on Mavi Marmara. His news report contains numerous details which would have required him to be in multiple places at the same time. I am not necessarily saying that he is lying or is uncredible, just pointing out that he didn't actually witness first hand the every single detail on his news report. --386-DX (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm, his account is of the Marmara clash, so when the BBC says he was an eyewitness, what else would it be referring to? If, as a result of the release of the activists, an account surfaces at any point that is better than Ben Yishai's, according to the mainstream media (of which Ben Yishai is a part), we should definitely take that into account, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I also don't see any detail in his account that would require him to have been in two places at once. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the details of how close he was to the action, but remember that there was a boat that tried boarding before the helicopters came, and there were passengers that blocked the soldiers from coming on board using bats, slingshots, metal bars, stun grenades, and hoses. And I can't tell for sure, but it sure looks like the passenger in this video is wearing a gas mask. The gas masks are more obvious in this video:
I can't speak to how he got his information, but he was certainly a witness to events as they occurred and thus was a witness. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
He was on an IDF ship for all the time, as were the other reporters. He can be a witness to what went on on that ship (as far as he was allowed to see it) but he was not a direct witness to what went on on the Mavi Marmara. His testimony is worth less than that of any person who was actually on board. Physchim62 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing the reason the BBC flatly disagrees with you is because of the principle that journalists' accounts are more valuable than participants' accounts in a clash (I think Wikipedia policy also advocates this principle), and because the videos released by the IDF demonstrate that much could be seen and heard from an adjacent vessel or a helicopter. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As I explained a few minutes ago; the reason BBC page disagrees is because there wasn't yet any other report about the incident when it was published on the morning of June 2nd, the activists were still under Israeli arrest. It is not a matter of "journalist vs activist"; there were numerous international journalists aboard the ship. Once again; I am not disputing his credibility as a journalist or claiming that he has lied, but numerous details in the news report contain factual inaccuracies as confirmed with the released images, videos, and official IDF statements. It is evident that he wasn't an eyewitness to the events that took part on the ship. For example, there was no way he could know that "All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests" without actually being on the ship. That was clearly not the case as confirmed by the live videos of the event, which proves that he was not a 1st hand eyewitness, and was relaying some of the information. --386-DX (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Many of the accounts from journalists on board were not eyewitness accounts either, as many were below deck or otherwise away from the fighting. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous recordings of the live broadcast before the Israeli soldiers took complete control of the ship. [25] Once again; there was no way he could know details like if "All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests" without physically being on the ship. The operation was carried out at night and filmed using infrared cameras from a distance, which do not show such details. Since he was not physically on the ship, we can conclude that he wasn't a first hand eyewitness to the events that happend on the ship. --386-DX (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
And what if he was on the original IDF boat that tried to board the ship? Neither of us know exactly where he was, so any presumptions or logical deductions are WP:Synth. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if he was on the original IDF boat, he couldn't have seen "All of the mercenaries", considering the boat did not approach, and also due to the size of the ship. In the footage released by the IDF, the passengers are not clearly wearing any "bulletproof vests", which discredits the possibility you mentioned. --386-DX (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't see how his removal can be justified without removal of the other Al Jazeera statements, as they also include hearsay and are not necessarily independent. The facts of his descriptions may be disputable, but the fact that he made them is not. As long as the statements are wholly attributed and contain context, they probably should remain in the article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
We are not disputing if he made the statements or not, and we're not removing them. We only removed that part that claimed that he was a first-hand eyewitness. --386-DX (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've restored part of his description which describes IDF planning (As he should have had access to this), and left off eyewitness accounts. I'm now questioning whether its worth having a journalist report section at all. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The journalist is also stated as an eyewitness in the initial contact section: "saying he heard 'Go back to Auschwitz' over the radio". The referenced news story does not state if he actually heard those statments himself. I therefore modified it accordingly. --386-DX (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate edits

This. --Kslotte (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support revert. This good-faith editor apparently didn't notice the HTML comment about edit-warring.  &#151;Rafi  01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should have marked it as vandalism so that I wouldn't have burnt through my 1rr. Oh well. All fixed.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
We have reached consensus here an talks, so I assume your 1RR isn't burnt. --Kslotte (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono ... I've been saving up my 1RRs for the past few days ... you can have all mine if you like. That's like 4RR!!! LOL :) Zuchinni one (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree on this one. This may be reverted. ManasShaikh (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice Z1. We should see if the admins will let us establish some sort of market for reverts. Might as well have it in the open instead of editors doing it under the table through emails and IRC. Sounds less controversial than Emissions trading :)
In all seriousness, the 1rr has been a hassle (especially for newer users) but overall it has worked well on this page. Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, the only reason I offered you the 1RRs I've been hoarding is that I heard their value is going to fall sharply against the euro next week. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
After having been blocked for a day several hours after two technical reverts that were (1) following established customs and (2) aimed at finding a wording that would be consensual, I've been thinking about restricting my constributions to additions. Any improvements to the presentation of the content should be made by those with lower risk aversion with regard to the suspension of their ability to edit on the project.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Do suspicions belong in the lead?

The lead should be as factual as possible and free from speculation. The sentence "IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF" is pure speculation.

If that sentence is removed then the following one, refuting it, can be removed as well.

"Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons."

What the IDF 'suspects' is just not lead material.

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no disagreements about that we can remove it from the lead. ManasShaikh (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not pure speculation, it's actually based on ballistic test results which show that at least one of the firearms were used, don't belong to the IDF. And as it's sourced, it should be there. --Gilisa (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That still doesn't account for it being in the lead. Just like the "shot in the head and back" it is a detail that should be left to the rest of the article, not the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed ShalomOlam (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

the israeli claims which have the purpose to bring relief to it's military action doe belong -if- to the israel account.--Severino (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • The only part of the lead where I'm currently seeing "suspicions" is IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons - that seems OK to me, in that it summarises nicely an issue that's discussed later in the article. Both viewpoints are summarised without WP:UNDUE exposure to one or the other, and it makes clear who believes what. I'm guessing I'm a little too late to the party - "shot in the head and back" has gone now, so I can only speculate what it said and why it was removed (it does sound inappropriate for the lead, though). TFOWRidle vapourings 10:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"terror activists", not "peace activists" Article that claims that some of the "activists" have no "pro-peace activities" in their resume, only "pro-terror activities". Just because someone claims he is a peace activists, does not mean that he is one. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading this with Google Translate it seems to be an editorial, not a news report. I'm not sure why this is here. Editorials don't belong in the article, and I'm not sure this would help with the discussion to improve it.
Zuchinni one (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My point was: "(peace) activists" is a definition that the "activists" pick for themselves. Making the use of it in the article POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A ctrl+f shows the only use of "peace activist" being in a citation. I think we are fine.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think activist is the more NPOV phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, while noting that it depends on the sources and context. I wouldn't object to, say, a TD or other parliamentarian being described as a "peace activist" (if supported by sources etc etc), but as a general rule "activist" is better. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Dammit, I must read all comments before replying!
Agreed - though I used "/" on Firefox ;-) Only found "peace activist" once, in a citation. Strictly it should be "peace activist", not peace activist, per the source used. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Referring any activist as a peace activist would be POV, even if they are one. --386-DX (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing "The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief " to IHH only

For these reasons:

1. This is the foundation's article name in Wikipedia. This is how it's known and refereed in the world as well.

2. There are Israeli and American allegations this foundation is related to terror groups and using the full name is implying to certain POV. 3. The full name as it appeared in the article is translation of the full Turkish name while the abbreviations refer to the Turkish name only.

--Gilisa (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the first name we mention the IHH we should provide their organisation's full name (appropriately sourced, etc). After that we should certainly stick to IHH.
There's a similar issue with "Israeli Military" and "IDF" in the WP:LEAD. There's no obvious connection for a reader between "Israeli Military" and "IDF". I'd suggest something like:
The Gaza flotilla raid, code named Operation Sea Breeze by the Israeli military (IDF), ...
The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish NGO İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), ...
Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 10:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. RomaC (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What RomaC said. "Suggest" probably wasn't the best word for me to use in regard to the MOS. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! TFOWRidle vapourings 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be reverted. First, the abbrevation is of Turkish name (as appeared in the title of the article about it itself, the English name is only given afterward and within the article itself). I've no problem with the IDF as Israeli Defence Forces. But there is a huge chip on the shoulder of anyone who choose to present the full translated name of the IHH, which is allegedly affiliated with terror organisations. I see it as blatant POV pushing which aims to present the IHH as inocent non controversial aid organisation-and it's certainly not the case. Choosing the abbrevartions is the only neutral option. --Gilisa (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Those all sound like issues that could be fixed, rather than reverted (e.g. by using the Turkish name, instead of an English translation).
...and please try and remain focussed on content, not "editors with huge chips on their shoulders". I have no love for either side. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are not necessary here, but thanks. It's not a matter of civility, I just couldn't and can't put it in other words. Let's not ignore the difficulties to keep this article clear of POV and certainly the IHH issue is very relevant, so again, I see no violation of Wikipedia policies in my comments here. Considering the allegations regarding the IHH and the nature of this article and the endless discussions and edit warring about every word in the lead, there is no place for the full name. And again, the full name is not only superfluous but also implying. So the chip is still there as I see it, at least on the full name itself, although I'm deeply and honestly apologize in front of anyone who mistakenly took it personally. --Gilisa (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a few concerns: first, the abbrevation is of Turkish name (as appeared in the title of the article about it itself, the English name is only given afterward and within the article itself). I've no problem with the IDF as Israeli Defence Forces. - quicker to type, easier to write, and avoids civility concerns. I wasn't warning you, by the way, simply reminding you that we all should try and avoid anything unrelated to content. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA both apply to talk pages and edit summaries as well as articles, by the way, so do avoid "chip on shoulder" comments.
Incidentally, you didn't address the issue of fixing rather than reverting the edit. Would you be happy with the Turkish name for IHH instead of the English translation?
TFOWRidle vapourings 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've no essential problem with the Turkish name aside for that it will soon attract editors to add or revert to the full English name. I didn't address it first time simply because I was distract by my feeling that I should clearify myself. BTW, you may notice that the IDF is called in the lead "Israeli Military" while the abbreviations are Isreal Defense Forces (and I've no problem with that). I prefer to leave it Turkish IHH as it's already or to change it to Turkish IHH foundation. And WP policy does not force as to use the full name, we can use the Turkish name to bring end for this discussion. --Gilisa (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer "Israeli military (IDF)" to be "Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), but I can live with either way.
Regarding the MOS, no: When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. I personally feel the Turkish name is better here, rather than relying on a potentially contentious translation, but I also feel that the MOS is quite clear on using a non-initialism on the first occurrence.
TFOWRidle vapourings 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How about just leaving it the way it is right now....? :) ShalomOlam (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that "IHH" is better than "The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief" - simply because the latter it too f***ing long..... ShalomOlam (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but the full name is only being used once, in the lead. (Incidentally, I'd prefer the Turkish name, because using a translation opens up all sorts of other sourcing and POV issues). TFOWRidle vapourings 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As per TFOWR, the first use should be in full (For IDF also) then abbreviate. I dont think it makes sense to suggest POV when calling something its name (since its fact), but as Shalom stated, its so long that its tiring. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've change it to: "IHH" (with the link). If someone does not know what IHH is - they can use the link. That's why it's there... There is no need for the full (and too long) name to be in the lead of this article. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Shalom, per the above, Wikipedia policy clearly says use full name on first reference and abbreviations afterward: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. If you want to change policy then propose that on the appropriate project page, but knowingly violating policy here is not acceptable. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What RomaC said - it makes life easier for the reader (remember that we're all familiar with the topic; a reader from, say, rural New Zealand might well not know what IDF and IHH stand for). Also, it opens up the lead to POV: "IDF gets explained in full, why doesn't IHH?" Easy solution: follow MOS and do them both. TFOWRidle vapourings 13:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
@TFOWR, the translation is the English translation that IHH itself uses, so there shouldn't be any problems with that. Physchim62 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, ta! My only concern is with sourcing, and if the IHH use this translation, I'm OK with that. TFOWRidle vapourings 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons Image Caption

The current caption reads "The IDF recovered various items from the Mavi Marmara; some are visible in this picture,[133] including knives, sticks, metal bars, and other diverse tools, that were used as weapons[133] against the IDF by activists on board. Source: IDF". This is implying that all items in the image were used as weapons, whereas there is no statement or proof for that, even from the IDF. I'm therefore modifying the caption to state that "The IDF recovered various items from the Mavi Marmara; including knives, sticks, metal bars, and other diverse tools, some of which were used as weapons[133] against the IDF by activists on board. Source: IDF".

We should add a reference to a reliable source that actually describes what the image shows. The changed version is better than the former version, but it is still not properly sourced.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The image was released by the IDF, and the source is stated as IDF. What the image shows is items from the ship some of which were used as weapons. There was no claim from the IDF that everything in the image was used as weapons. --386-DX (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The source of the picture is stated as IDF, but there's no appropriate source for the image caption right now.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla case source share

Click for Article and Video links
  • Amount of supply 10.000 tonnes [26]
    • 7.500 dollars worth cement
    • 3.500 dollars worth cash
  • Number of passengers 466 [27]
  • Number of crew
  • Number of journalists


Case Against Activists

Anti-semitic talk arguments

Case Against IDF

Legality of blockade
  • Helicopter
  • Weapons
Activist and passenger testimonies
Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe
Gaza Flotilla Sexual harrassment
Non-Gaza flotilla abuse
Aftermath protests

Collection of articles against IHH activists and IDF commandos along with general and other related articles, eyewitness accounts. In progress. Please add links so that we have a better collection. Kasaalan (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever it is, do not censor me again. Kasaalan (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not censoring. It is an automatic archiving process for old threads (see this). You can always move it from the archive here if the thread is current. --Kslotte (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Bot is too fast. I will remove my comments. Kasaalan (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional news sources

Click to expand article list
*'Flotilla op ended in disaster' JPost
  • A makeshift hostage negotiation took place aboard the ship, according to the cameraman.JPost
  • 'Pixies' cancel Tel-Aviv show JPost
  • South Korea lowers status of Peres visit in wake of Gaza flotilla raid / Vietnam three days ago asked Peres to cancel his visit due to the atmosphere of anti-Israel sentiments within its borders Haaretz
  • Jews should leave Palestine and return to Europe, top U.S. journalist says Haaretz
  • Top U.S. journalist loses agent, friends after saying 'Jews should get the hell out of Palestine' Haaretz
  • By attacking the relief flotilla, Israel picked a fight with Turkey, a more dangerous foe than Hamas. The quarrel has been brewing for the past several years, and it's a huge strategic change in the Middle East. Washington Post
  • France, Britain urge international Gaza inquiry AFP
  • Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla Guardian
  • OIC calls for global action against Israel Arab News
  • Burney tells of ordeal on ship Gulf Times
  • Shot aid ship Aussie would do it again Sydney Morning Herald
  • Shot Australian says Israelis left him to bleed Australian Broadcasting Corporation
  • Middle East envoy Tony Blair says the international community must ensure people of Gaza have hope. CNN
  • Bahrain call to break blockade Gulf Daily
  • frantic efforts to portray the activists as terrorists / The use of video confiscated from journalists has drawn sharp criticism from the Foreign Press Association in Israel, which demanded the military stop using the footage. / IHH head Bulent Yildirim said all passengers boarded the ship in the Turkish port of Antalya, and rejected suggestions that those who clashed with the soldiers were trained militants. AP

Shared by   Cs32en Talk to me  22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged similar threads. Add more links for a better NPOV collection of opposing views. Kasaalan (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Background main links

Background main links "Siege of Gaza" and "Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels" isn't relevant here. These links aren't the main reasons for the flotilla nor for the raid. --Kslotte (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Gaza is definitely relevant to the article, as that is the very reason why this flotilla was organised. I'm not sure about the tunnels though. --386-DX (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie" isn't main article about "Ships in flotilla". These misleading things should be reverted. --Kslotte (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Moved it to MV Rachel Corrie. --386-DX (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL. What does Alexander the Great have to do with anything. Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This ha been edited. We can link to these, but the main article template have at least been misused.

--Kslotte (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from OlderIgor, 9 June 2010


Quote from the article: "Some supporters of the flotilla announced on 28 March..." The press release in footnote 63 is dated 28 May. Please change "March" to "May".

OlderIgor (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I believe it was an error for the actual act of Marching, not the month. CTJF83 pride 02:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summary

There is currently a discussion regarding the summary of this event in the article 2010 on the talk page. Input would be appreciated. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Death

An editor has removed the cause of death information from the lead diff, with the edit summary "If this info remains in the lead, then, for balance, I will add in the details of all the injuries of Israeli soldiers (where/how they were stabbed, what injuries they suffered". RS seem to focus on the deaths of the ships' passengers over injuries to the commandos, so I don't know what "balance" would be served by including that information in the lead. But if someone wants to make a case they could do so here rather than removing germane and well-sourced content regarding a central aspect of the event. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ths is not a IDF outfit so there is no need to balance body count like 1 isold to 1000 other . Article had to be NPOV not a "balanced". What if something like this was not balenced. Anyway how you can balance a death to scratches ? Ai 00 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, is it the custom of WP to include specific details of how people are killed in such a confrontation (e.g. shot from behind, shot multiple times) in the lead? Is it not sufficient to say that the Israeli raid/actions resulted in the death of 9 activists? If you feel these details are necessary specifically in the lead, than it would also be necessary to say in the lead that one soldier was stabbed in the abdomen, another fractured his skull, etc, [29] rather than just saying that X soldiers were injured (and the same can be said regarding details of the activist injuries as well). Regards, Kinetochore (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You could propose your idea, Kine, and if there are sources other than the sensationalistic Israeli Ynet website then it should be considered. But try to be neutral here: Are you really proposing that a principal quality of this event is injuries suffered by commandos? Is that what made this noteworthy? The RS I see all point to the deaths of the passengers over injuries to commandos. Of course cause of death is notable, RS make it so eg. "The revelation that many of those killed – eight Turks and a US-Turkish citizen – were shot in the head at close range by members of Israel's Shayetet 13 naval special forces team only exacerbated the sense of anger in many quarters, above all in Turkey." [30] Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to this topic, but Ynet news much less sensationalist than Al Jazeera, and its certainly an RS.Kinetochore (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
See HERE for a previous discussion that directly related to this topic. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that. Believe the coroner's info should make its way back into the lead, because a principal element of this event, if not the principal element, is the killing of the passengers. What you believe that info on the cause of death might imply is OR, and removal is unwarranted. Also do you really see a qualitative equivalence between an anonymous IDF soldier's saying he saw "murderous rage in their eyes" and a medical examiner's report on wounds and cause of death? RomaC (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, principle element is indeed killing of the passengers, but the ways in which they were killed (i.e. from behind) is irrelevant to an overall summary of the conflict, unless you have some other reason for wanting inclusion in the lead. Kinetochore (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason I have is encyclopedic accuracy. They died: How did they die? Do you see a problem with including this information, or do you think it is not reliably sourced? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be included, but is it central enough to be placed in the lead? Seems to me to be a one-sided attempt to imply activists were "executed." Is there enough of a consensus on this point among RS to place it in the lead? (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello IP, I agree, would this event even have a Wiki article if nine passengers had not died? I'm not sure, but do any other attempts to deliver aid to Gaza have their own articles? The deaths do seem very "central" according to RS, and Wiki editors' personal opinions on what reliably sourced and verifiable information on the deaths might imply should not really matter here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the deaths are central, but I still disagree that the details of their deaths are important enough belong in the lead (instead of somewhere else in the article). The proximity from which the activists were shot does not belong in a summary of the raid.Kinetochore (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

close range shootings

Here is an exchange that I had with Zuchinni one on topic. It belongs here more than anywhere else. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Manas! I would like to ask you to revert your recent addition to the Gaza flotilla raid lead. This information is included elsewhere in the article and if we include it in the lead we will also need to include, for balance, the IDF statements about the passengers wearing bullet proof vests (thus accounting for the shots). There are also POV issues with this information as per the Talk section.

Please see the following discussions Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Cause_of_Death AND Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#2nd_paragraph_of_lead_getting_full_of_he-said_.2F_she-said_.26_POV_language and consider contributing your thoughts before making changes to the lead.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one, thanks for the feedback. What's there is news report from Third party. I am not quoting the activists. So the need to quote "both sides" does not appear. However, if you think that the IDF's claims are important, please go ahead and add the information with references. We can discuss from there and improve the article. Thanks. ManasShaikh (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that you are quoting a 3rd source. It is based off the Turkish autopsy and was discussed in depth earlier on the talk page. The problem is not the fact that it is a 3rd source, but rather that it is POV and makes implications about the Israeli soldiers being especially violent. This is the same kind of implication made by Israeli news reports of the attackers wearing bullet proof vests and autopsy results from Israel that suggest the troops were fired upon by weapons not used by Israel, and thus on board prior to their arrival. The lead has been very contentious and as a result the length was getting out of control.
I agree with you that the Turkish autopsy results are relevant and should be included in the article. But by including them in the lead you introduce the kind of well-intentioned POV that has resulted in MANY edit wars. If we include all the POV info in the lead it will be out of control and full of innuendo rather than facts. This is in opposition to WP:Lead.
I hope that makes sense and you understand why I'm asking you to remove it from the lead.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one Thank you for your feedback. As you have implied, it is clearly an important piece of information. Now facts are not considered POV. The auspsy reports are beyond dispute. On the other hand, the newspapers report Israeli claims. No proof has been provided- nor did the newspapers were able to verify the claims.
In fact, I'd argue that the fact is so important and relevant, that the exclusion of it may be considered POV. The WP:NPOV article puts it wonderfully- "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view."
Please also have a look at WP:NOTABILITYManasShaikh (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call on bringing this to the talk page Manas :)

Regarding the inclusion of this information. Here are my thoughts. Currently both the Turkish and Israeli governments have POV on this raid. That is one of the reasons why information released by the Israeli government has been tagged with words like "alleged" and "claimed". However the same has not been done for the Turkish government's statements. My concern here is that they be treated equally. Either both as POV or both as NPOV. The autopsy results released by the Turkish government may indeed by very relevant. But in that case shouldn't information which directly relates, such as the Israeli government's statements about activists wearing bullet proof vests, and Israeli soldiers having gunshot wounds?

If we take both government statements as true and NPOV then Israeli soldiers could have been quite justified in shooting back at people, who were shooting at them, and furthermore shooting them in the head since they supposedly had bullet proof vests.

I think information from both sides should be considered POV and should stay out of the lead and be remanded to the main body of the article where there is plenty of room for it. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one, you are making a fundamental mistake. Turkey is a third party, not part of the conflict. This is a dispute between the peace activists and Israel so the two sides are Israel and the activists.. Moreover, the autopsy reports are not governmental claims. Nor are they released by the government. We will add the word "claim" to anything that the activists and Israel says and is not verified by a third party. For example, the activist account that Israelis were firing before they boarded is a claim, and the article reports it as such. ManasShaikh (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Turkey not at all a third party. The government supports the IHH, which it considers to be a charitable organization. Also if you look at the official statements from the Turkish government, they are anything but NPOV. If you think that the autopsies and the reports were not authorized by the Turkish Government, then, using your logic above, the reports from Israeli hospitals of the gunshot wounds the soldiers received are also extremely relevant and need to go in the lead. I feel the lead needs to be NPOV and factual. The inclusion of BOTH of these reports is neither and they should not go in the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "The government supports the IHH"? Considering it a charitable organisation means they support? So UN also supports IHH, I suppose? Israel has been accused of wrongdoing. Turkey has not. Therefore Turkey is third party. Turkey is not writing wikipedia article that it has to be NPOV. It can of course take a stand. That does not make a party to the conflict.
The whole point of contention is the death of civilians on that ship. Therefore the information that some of the activists were killed in close range is critical, and not having it in the lead is misleading the readers. ManasShaikh (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zuchinni one. --Kslotte (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Zuchinni one on this one. Although this is factual and crucial information, it probably should not be included in the lead. --386-DX (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Manas here - the autopsy reports have nothing to do with the Turkish government or someone's opinion or POV. Moreover evidence of close range shootings is highly important, whether it is incriminatory or not. To balance it out one can follow it with the IDF or Israeli government response to the autopsies, if one has been issued. Proudbharati (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Or to balance it, one can say that the IDF claims its soldiers received gunshot wounds to the head (did it say that?) and autopsy reports from Turkey claim the activists were shot from close ranges. They both seem pertinent and deserve a place in the lead and are an integral part of the discourse because these are important components of what transpired on the ship that morning. Proudbharati (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Manas and I am shocked that we are even talking about this. Autopsy reports are not POV. The Turkish government just won't make up such reports, it would be incredibly dishonorable and since the govt has asked for an international investigation, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did so. If we don't want anything that comes from Turkey, then we should ban EVERY single report and video from IDF as well. Abureem (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
To Proudharati and Abureem, the question is not whether or not to include the autopsy information. I think everyone is in agreement that it should be a part of the article. The question is whether or not it should be in the lead. Look at the standards in WP:LEAD. This simply is not the place for a full balanced discussion about what happened and why. That is what the rest of the article is for. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This is being discussed in at least three sections now. I suggest that we continue in Gaza_flotilla_raid#Lead.2C_shot_in_close_range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 386-DX (talkcontribs) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead, shot in close range

This is the edit by user ManasShaikh, that need to be reverted according to WP:LEAD. The statement is true, but to detailed for lead. Secondly, the has been discussions earlier that word "passenger" should be used. --Kslotte (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

that edit should be left to stay (for the time being) on both points. Physchim62 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by using "passenger"? If you mean replacing the word "activists" in the context of the clash, I shot that down before. But I support the revert.  &#151;Rafi  22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement is not only too detailed for the lead, but it is based solely on the testimony of one Turkish official (who states that it is a preliminary conclusion). Turkey is an involved party in the incident, and is going through some turbulent times in terms of democracy. It would be highly irresponsible for us in this case to reprint the statement of a Turkish government official with no qualification. Certainly the mainstream media is not doing that. In fact, barring a couple of exceptions, the mainstream media seems to be too skeptical to bother reporting the statement at all. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
ROFL! An official report from the authorities of the country which all nine victims held nationality, and you pretend that it is not a reliable source! Not to mention that the Israeli authorities had access to the bodies for more than two days, and no doubt took detailed pictures and notes, so any claims from the Turkish authorities could easily be contested. Get a brain, mate. Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's still too detailed for the lead. In fact, in the past hour a lot of detail has been added to the lead without forming consensus here first. Let's avoid the edit wars, folks.  &#151;Rafi  00:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done The lead has been cleaned. "Shot at close range" is still stated elsewhere in article. --Kslotte (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the hasty removal, there was no consensus. Cause of death is multiple gunshots at close range. Why not state that clearly, the deaths are central to the event. RomaC (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading this discussion, it looks to me like there is consensus for removal from the lead, seeing as only one person objected, and that the objection is to a straw-man position and based entirely on speculation. Also, the burden of gaining consensus is on the one adding material. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I support the revert, for a concrete reason: the shots at close range corroborate the IDF's account that live shots were fired when the soldiers were in mortal danger in a mob armed with cold weapons. But presented superficially, the information portrays the soldiers as brutal aggressors. To avoid either impression we should leave such detail to the article and obey Wikipedia:Lead#Relative emphasis.  &#151;Rafi  01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Frankly an editor's support or opposition for content should not be based on the impression they imagine it might give. That's not policy. Also, editors should not participate simply to present the Israeli narrative. Passengers say the IDF shot before boarding, IDF says there was a melee and the soldiers shot only as a last resort and in self-defence. Both these are positions, and both are reflected. Let's don't confuse that with facts, the dead were shot repeatedly and at close range. This is the autopsy, by a medical doctor, and has been widely reported. RomaC (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, did you understand that we are talking about don't having the "shots at close range" in the LEAD section of the article? --Kslotte (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand we're talking about the lead and first reference to the deaths, giving cause of death: "...shot repeatedly at close range". This phrase complies with "lead" (is a summary of more-detailed info found down in the body); and complies with Wikipedia's three core content policies, "neutral point of view" (phrase is from a clinical autopsy), "verifiability" (phrase is supported by many reliable sources) and "no original research" (passenger deaths are at the core of the event, the main reason we have this article). If the concern is the addition of five words to the lead, let's make room by removing these redundant six words: "The sequence of events is disputed." which immediately precede content showing that the sequence of events is disputed. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The range of the shootings is a very important important detail of the description, and it is not lengthening the sentence considerably. However, we may consider removing the "repeatedly" part, as it implies that the shots were fired continuously. Please also see WP:DRNC. --386-DX (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. No one is disputing facts or neutrality of phrasing. My argument is that emphasis on graphic detail is POV.  &#151;Rafi  03:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. See reasons above. ManasShaikh (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kslotte, let me remind you of a few rules: one, you have to reach consensus before you can revert. Two, if consensus is not reached then there is a procedure to follow. Three you have to give reasonable time for all parties to respond (on WP that's about a day or two). You can't put up a notice and within a few hours remove even if all the editors that showed up within that hour agreed with you. I want to make sure we are on the same footing on that one. Therefore, I request you to undo your revert. Let us discuss, and if it does not work out, then we can follow the procedure that wikipedia has set out for such disputes. Another note: don't make different threads for the same discussion. I will move this whole discussion into that tomorrow. As for your arguments, see the discussion above for my response. ManasShaikh (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, ManasShaikh, please don't make significant changes to the lead without establishing consensus.  &#151;Rafi  03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree, and that's why the article should be restored, a consensus should be reached, and then any possible changes should be implemented. Any change implemented without giving enough time for people to respond is in violation of WP rules ("Don't do big things suddenly; the community is more likely to accept your edits if you do them slowly and make effort to keep the community involved. While consensus at policy pages can and does change, it usually does so slowly."). ManasShaikh (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to your original "close range" edit. It should remain reverted until consensus, which will probably require the input of more opinions. I also have an idea for a compromise, but I'm too tired now to hash it out. Sorry for suspense. Going to bed.  &#151;Rafi  04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This whole argument is about whether my edit should be removed. It can not and should not be done without reaching a consensus. But it was. Therefore I decided to revert it back to what it was. Until a consensus is reached. ManasShaikh (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
However, I am willing to hear what you will propose. ManasShaikh (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I tightened up the cause of death info and removed redundant wording as above. But the opening of this graph remains problematic re; neutrality: "On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists fought the soldiers with metal clubs and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship. Nine activists were killed... " Again, this -- Passengers attacked, then IDF defended -- advances a cause-effect order that basically parrots the Israeli narrative, which is disputed. So we shouldn't open with this, we should open with "Nine passengers died..." which is more important information, and then summarize the IDF and GFF perspectives. RomaC (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss this paragraph as a whole. I'm going to start a new thread about it at the bottom (it's a new topic anyway) where it will receive more attention.  &#151;Rafi  14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please undo that and continue discussing in this section. There is a reason that this paragraph is here, and it is to avoid the repetition of the same arguments. --386-DX (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


The use of paintball guns is sourced, but it looks very strange. Why bring paintball guns? Is it some translation error and they are refering to Flexible baton round (beanbag)? Gardell identified the weapons as Uzis (but he's not a military expert) and Edward Peck says they were attached to automatic weapons.[31] // Liftarn (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Paintball guns are commonly used for non-lethal deterrence. Usually the paintballs are filled with a type of irritant similar to pepper spray, but I haven't seen mention of this. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF has night vision, so they were aware the preperations made on ship. So either they sent their commandos to be attacked by a several people with paintball rifles. Or they are simply lying about rifles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
aside: I'm not convinced about that logic, sorry. If the IDF were fully aware of such preparations they would surely either have released the video they have of that (rather than the ship's security camera video) and/or not had their commandos descend in such a 'casual' manner to be attacked and captured? (The IDF were the ones with the paintball weapons, btw). Harami2000 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF had night vision, they released IR thermal footage themselves. There is no way IDF didn't check the ship board with cameras prior to raid. The security cameras clearly show a group making preperations over board outside ship 20-30 minutes before raid. There is no way IDF raid with paintball guns unless they are lethal. Kasaalan (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen sources saying the guns fired some kind of glass marbles. It is also possible that it refers to a type of grenade that contains rubber coated metal balls. // Liftarn (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Getting hit by regular paintballs, from guns that are not pressure-limited (like recreational paintball), could easily be confused for something harder, like glass. The preceding statement is pure WP:OR and comes directly from an extremely painful personal experience  :P Zuchinni one (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen several sources alledging (or maybe just speculating) the use of rubber bullets at first. That would seem logical, if the IDF were expecting to have to do some crowd control. Physchim62 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In this video you can see Israel's soldiers handling paintball weapons (0:25)

And some stun grenades falling in the boat, althought the origin of this grenade i think can't be known. --Bentaguayre (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here speculating on whether or not they were really paintball guns and whether or not it makes sense that the IDF decided to send in commandos with paintball guns is violating WP:OR, WP:TALK, and WP:SOAP. I suggest you stop immediately and start discussing things that are actually relevant and sourced that can be improved in the article. The use of paintball guns is widely reported in WP:RS and therefore there is nothing dubious about it. Nobody has any valid reason to suspect any mistaken translations, either. I am removing the inappropriate dubious tag. Breein1007 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The source for the paintball claim is IDF and that is a single, partisan source. As we have conflicting statements about the weapons used it is relevant to the article. // Liftarn (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That is not true. The fact that the soldiers were equipped with paintball guns is widely reported and not solely attributed to IDF claims. Here is one example that I just quickly found [32]. There are many more. Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Those news sources just repeat the IDF claims. We also have at least two RS quoting witnesses who say they carrid automatic weapons. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not true that they just repeat IDF either, activists say in interviews that IDF used paintball guns with "glass" ammo (what is that, btw?) first, then rubber bullets, then live ammo. One of the witnesses apparently talked about Uzis, but also identified the troop carrying helicopter as Apache. I think it is undisputed that they used paintball guns. They may or may not have used assault rifles or other weapon as well. On the other hand, the autopsy says all the victims were shot with 9mm, so whatever other weapons they brought or used, IDF didn't appear to actually hit anybody with them. Ketil (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see the first IDF soldiers boarding in this IHH video (from 8:49). Those weapons there are definitely not assault rifles, but rather some kind of riot gun. Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

noone will claim that the israel military used solely paintball guns...--Severino (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not even the IDF! But the IHH video was live-streamed off the ship, so the IDF who appear at the end (boarding from the sea) must have been among the first on board. That backs up the IDF claim that they started with non-lethal weapons. Physchim62 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I recently found a third source saying it was not paintball guns. // Liftarn (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider this: [33] Flayer (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Slate had an article today about the use of paintball guns here.[34] Also we do have an article on pepperball ourselves. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^,7340,L-3896996,00.html
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference IsraeliVideo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b c d Haaretz Service and The Associated Press (June 3, 2010). "Gaza flotilla organizer admits activists seized weapons from Israeli soldiers". Haaretz. Retrieved June 7, 2010. 
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference APTeibel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Ashraf Sweilam (June 2, 2010). "Gazans cross border after Egypt lifts blockade". San Diego Union-Tribune. Associated Press. Retrieved June 5, 2010. 
  8. ^ Paul Reynolds (June 2, 2010). "Israeli convoy raid: What went wrong?". BBC News. 
  9. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Haaretz9mm was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference urlCustoms officials deny Israeli claims weapons were onboard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference blah was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^