Talk:Welcome to Palestine

Sources to add

• “Flytilla” passengers grounded in Switzerland
• Welcome to Palestine Campaign Supporters and Participants Gather in Bethlehem's Manger Square Tiamut^talk 10:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• 12 held ahead of Bethlehem visit - detailed description of the British participants detained Tiamut^talk 16:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Dozens to be deported from TLV airport, 5 Israeli activists arrested" on +972 Sindinero (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• video reportage from therealnews.com Sindinero (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Israel begins deportation of pro-Palestinian 'flytilla' activists Tiamut^talk 17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Israel deports 36 activists, holds 82 Tiamut^talk 17:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• 'Flightilla' detainees reportedly begin hunger strike Tiamut^talk 17:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive prominence for dubious Israeli claims

Why are Israeli claims that the "Welcome to Palestine" participants are "hooligans", "provocateurs", and "troublemakers" being given such prominence in this article? These claims seem to be largely unsubstantiated, and highly contentious. If Israeli officials wish to blacken the names of hundreds of campaigners in such a sweeping fashion, that is their business, but do we need to publicise these claims both in the intro and the "Israel's response" sections? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because the participants are in fact "hooligans", "provocateurs", and "troublemakers". Maybe I'll add the word "terrorists" too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.210.161 (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with first comment - these characterizations don't need to be given such prominence. Sindinero (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I added them, but if people think they are unnecessary in the lead, I have no problem with removing them. Tiamut^talk 15:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Tiamut- Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

edit summary provides reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the intro section. The first sentence consists of a short, reasonably neutral, description of what the "Flytilla" entailed. The second sentence gives a brief summery re. the objectives of the Flytilla "According to [the] organizers". It uses moderate language, and dose not contain overt/explicit criticism of Israel. The third sentence, by contrast, contains sweeping, immoderate, and possibly libellous, criticisms of all of the participants, and does not, as implied by the edit summery (when it was re-added), give balance to the intro. In my opinion This third sentence is inappropriate in the intro, especially as it's contents are covered only three paragraphs later in the article (under the "Israel's response" heading). Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I find Prunesqualer's argument to be very compelling, but I'm okay with leaving it in, as it does represent the official Israeli response to the initiative and I think most readers can see how ridiculous a statement it is. I do think we need to add more detailed information of the internationals who participated, such as their ages (from 9 to 89, families, women), their line of work (lots of retirees and community activists), etc. I will look for good sources and start adding info soon. If others have good sources to provide, please post them in the section above. Tiamut^talk 17:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I lean towards paraphrasing but direct quotes are fine.Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Earlier I described the remarks by Israeli officials, which are quoted in the lead, as "sweeping, immoderate, and possibly libellous". Others may disagree, but surly we all accept they are contentious. If we remove the quotation marks, and paraphrase these remarks, we risk blurring the distinction between- the voice of the Israeli officials, and- the editorial voice of Wiki. In this instance I would definitely not like to see that distinction blurred. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think quotes are better in this case. Sindinero (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Flytilla," "Air flotilla," "Welcome to Palestine"

Tiamut (talk · contribs), seeing as you created this article, can you explain your rationale in selecting "Welcome to Palestine" as the article's name? Judging from how reliable sources report on the event, "Flytilla" appears to be the most commonly used name, "Air flotilla" is least common and preferred by Israeli news sources, and "Welcome to Palestine" is somewhere in the middle and favored by Palestinian sources. I propose renaming to "Flytilla" or "2011 flytilla," or something along those lines.—Biosketch (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How does “Welcome to Palestine (2011 Flytilla)” sound? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine. This event was organized by Palestinians under the name 'Welcome to Palestine'. A google news search for that name yields 544 results. According to the New York Times article cited in our article, it was local Israel media who dubbed it a "flightilla". A google news search for that name yields 26 hits. Given that the official name of the campaign is "Welcome to Palestine" and it is used by hundreds of mainstream media sources, I think it is the most appropriate title. Using the name accorded to the event by the Israeli media when it is also not the most common name seems illogical to me and out of line with our naming policies. Readers looking to the event under alternate names will find it by way of redirects which i also created. Tiamut^talk 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Flytilla" (the actual name suggested) returns 324 hits. Both searches return a lot of blogs and other non-RS stuff.

In general searches, "flytilla" returns 327,000 hits, while "welcome to Palestine" (excluding an article by the same name by Robert Fisk) returns 257,000 hits (and includes stuff like this). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

a general web search will include alot of non-RS', so its best to stick to google news in this case. 324 hits (are you sure about that number? MY search brings up 185) is a lot less than 1,370 which is what "Welcome to Palestine" gets in google news today. Welcome to Palestine is also the official name of the campaign (as per sources cited in the article, and here's another one [1]). "Flytilla", "Flightilla" are variant transliterations of a Hebrew nickname coined by the Israeli media (as per info in the article). Obviously, the official name which is also the most commonly used is the most appropriate. Tiamut^talk 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently getting about 550 hits for "flytilla" with decidedly non-Israeli sources like WAFA. This is on google.com, not google.ca. Also "flytilla" is definitely not a transliteration of Hebrew. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

the difference in the hits result we are getting is because I sort the search by date too. so "flytilla" get 186 results in google.com news search sorted by date, while "Welcome to Palestine" gets 1400 results.

"Flightilla", according to Isabel Kershner of the New York Times is the Israeli media name for the event. "Flytilla" seems to be an alt spelling of the same. I'm assuming there is a Hebrew equivalent, but perhaps I"m wrong. Its irrelevant to the issue though. The official name of the campaign and the most common by far should be preferred over other options, per our naming policies. `Tiamut^talk 17:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. It seems that when you sort by date it doesn't group articles in the "all X news articles" format. It repeats articles though, or maybe indexes updated articles twice. For example, in your search there's the same "Monsters and Critics.com" article twice with small variations. It's currently the 3rd and 7th hits (doesn't seem like that's a RS either, but that's besides the point).

Apparently "flytilla" is an attempt to capture the feel of the Hebrew word that's an equivalent of "flotilla", only pertaining to airplanes. But I agree that's not really important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead now includes "[Israel] insisted that they would deny entry to the activists". This not only sounds arbitrary, but also misrepresents Israel's position. Israel maintains it has a right to deny people entry. We also have an expert in the article saying states have a right to deny people entry. The current lead is a blatant NPOV violation. If there is a problem with Israel saying it has a right to do something, the correct thing to do would be to add an expert opinion to the body of the article with the POV that Israel has no such right, and then mention that in the lead. Not obfuscate the issue in such an NPOV-violating manner. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have clarified my edit summary on the talk page. The point is that the previous phrasing—Israel defended their right to decide who is allowed to enter—is semantically ambiguous. It could mean either "Israel maintained that it has a right to deny people entry to Israel" or "Israel fought for its right to deny people entry." The first sentence concerns the assertion of a right, the second one assumes this right as a given. The first one is what you intend, but the second one - which is how the phrasing sounded to me when I first read it - implies that the article agrees, in an editorial voice, that a) Israel has this right and b) their actions re: the flytilla are to be understood in light of this right. Deciding on these questions, one way or another, is not NPOV. There is no "problem with Israel saying it has a right to do something," but a problem in phrasing that suggests that the article takes a stand on this one way or another. I disagree that the current phrasing is nNPOV, but agree that it could use some more precision so that all positions are represented accurately. Any ideas? Sindinero (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So you could have just changed "defended its right to..." to "maintains it has a right to..." rather than re-frame the whole thing into something that does not accurately represent the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you try to make a minimal effort to assume good faith? You could, for your part, have taken half a second to realize that your phrasing was clumsy, highly ambiguous, and misleading before making your change, but I didn't accuse you of trying to distort the issue. My edit was a revert, if you'll recall, and the wording wasn't originally mine. I didn't have time to provide a better solution than that, but "Israel insists..." is not inaccurate, and saying that it is simplifies the issue. The question of Israel's rights (or "rights," depending) to manage the movement of persons into Israel, into the West Bank, into Gaza, and from within other sovereign states is one of the bones of contention in this issue, and one of the stated goals of the flo/ytila organizers is to call attention to this. It does the readers of this article no good to oversimplify this issue or to summarily conflate Israel's claims with statements in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Sindinero (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

The 2012 section suffers from serious POV issues.

• Almost half the section is a quote from an anonymous "Israeli official" criticizing the Israeli government.
• There are two quotes from op-eds criticizing the Israeli government.
• There is no actual statement from the Israeli government explaining the reasons for denying the activists entry.
• There is a statement of fact that the Israeli government "proposed alternative destinations" sourced to an article saying that there's a plan to give them a letter, not that they actually got one.

I doubt anyone can honestly claim this section is not a NPOV violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Section is sourced moslty by Haaretz, JPost, Guardian and Yahoo News. Most of the info uses Israeli sources. At the moment, only one Arab source is used, while Haaretz is referenced at least 3 times. Are you proposing we add more info using Arab/Palestinian /Muslim sources to balance it out and have a more inclusive POV ?! Unflavoured (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that the country of origin of the source is what's important, rather than the POV it represents? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz is a pro-Palestinian newspaper (despite its owners are Israelis). Everybody knows that. I prefer other newspapers like Jerusalem Post or Arutz Sheva.--Jabotito48 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The JPost is a newspaper consisting of IDF press releases. Arutz Sheva is an Israeli settler production—no more need be said. No, Haaretz is a nice, safe, middle of the road, liberal, Israeli paper. Not too extreme way or the other. I read it daily and like it a great deal, though it is still hopelessly 'pro'-Israel sometimes. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz's journalists (like Gideon Levy) aren't "nice, safe, middle of the road" (I can assure you the overwhelming majority of Israelis don't think like that)... they are pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist Marxist militants committed to act systematically against Israel's national interests and image, subsidized with European money, serving foreign interests. In other places someone who works opposing the interests of his own country would be called 'traitor' (even in consolidated democracies). In fact, I think Clarín is very similar to Haaretz in many aspects (they don't represent their respective peoples, they use dirty delegitimation and misinformation tactics, etc).--Jabotito48 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The section could certainly do with some work. But I would like to see the article move forward by by adding all significant opinions/aspects of the issue, rather than removing significant, well sourced opinions/aspects that are currently in the article. Of course if material is not well sourced or misrepresents the source it needs to be addressed. This issue has received significant coverage, so I see no issue in expanding it to include all viewpoints per Rs. I' sure it would be easy for instance to find an official Israeli explananation for their actions, and to find op-ed's supporting their actions to balance the op-ed's critising them. Dlv999 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that op-eds are that significant (unless quoted by other reliable sources. Were they?), but rather than argue about each specific editorial or opinion piece I am pointing out that this section is a textbook example of an NPOV violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the your claim of POV the "proposed alternative destinations" letter was introduced by a pro-Israel editor and then re-introduced by Shrike, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to evidence anti-Israel POV, if that is indeed what you are implying here. What I see here is a section that needs some work, I have offered some solutions to some of the issues you raised. Regarding op-ed's requiring to be reported by a further RS to be classed as notable, I have never heard of this stipulation. An opinion on a topic printed in a mainstream publication is prima facea evidence of notability on that topic. I think several notable opinions (per mainstream publications) is perfectly normal for a current event topic. Dlv999 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is not about which side the editor who inserted the material is on, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by telling me who put it in the article.

I don't agree with you that opinion pieces are prima facie notable, but I don't have the time right now to try to find the relevant policy. Anyone? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to make an actual point proving that a certain POV exists, and you do not suggest a way to improve anything. If judging only by the sources given, the section is pretty much 70-80% an Israeli POV. Unflavoured (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming the discrepancy between the source and our article is evidence of anti Israel POV, but given the identity of the editors it is much more likely that the error is just an honest mistake (which of course could be easily resolved with no fuss at all). Likewise, the other points you made, I don't see POV, I just see some issues that could be resolved fairly easily as I have suggested. Dlv999 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the Israeli government POV is not represented at all, except for something unofficial about a letter that may or may not have been given to the participants, while the participants POV and a POV critical of the Israeli government is represented from multiple sources. Completely unbalanced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Almost half the section is a quote from an anonymous "Israeli official" criticizing the Israeli government."
  Got rid of this.
  
• There are two quotes from op-eds criticizing the Israeli government.
  I did ask someone to put in a right-wing voice for balance; if they (and seemingly you) can't be bothered, you can be sure I can't.
  
• There is no actual statement from the Israeli government explaining the reasons for denying the activists entry.
  I have inserted a statement from Netanyahu's office.
  
• There is a statement of fact that the Israeli government "proposed alternative destinations" sourced to an article saying that there's a plan to give them a letter, not that they actually got one.
  Here's the letter (scroll down), as tweeted by the Netanyahu's spokesman, Ofir Gendelman. I argue the burden is now on you to find a source that states either the Israelis changed their mind, that they did not give out the letters they said clearly and repeatedly that they said they would, or a source showing that the activists said they did not receive them.
  ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, even better: Government Gives Activists Sarcastic Letter; The Israeli government went ahead Sunday with its plan to hand out sarcastic letters to the leftists who flew into Ben Gurion Airport in the "flytilla." I would argue that this has been a lot of fuss for nothing. If you were genuinely concerned, why did you not rectify the situation yourself?
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that it's my responsibility to fix the imbalance in a section written mostly by you. You are mistaken.

You also seem to think little jibes about whether I'm "genuinely concerned" or whether I can or can't be bothered to find "right-wing sources" will get you cooperation in a topic area that's under discretionary sanctions (do follow the links at the top of this page if you haven't already). That's also a mistake.

To address the points you made above:

• Good.
• You can chose what to be bothered to do, but if you want the POV tag removed you're going to have to have a balanced section. I see you added another critical commentary. So we're at 3:0 at this point.
• The source you used as a ref for the Netanyahu statement does not include the words you put in quotation marks.
• I see you found a source for that statement about the letter (although INN is usually frowned upon as a source around here), but just to rectify your misunderstanding, if a source says someone is going to do something the article can't say they actually did it. The burden is not on me to prove otherwise. It's a simple matter of the article saying what the source says. Also, you used "sardonic" where the source uses "sarcastic", and I don't think 972mag is considered a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As the person who added the POV tag, it is your responsibility to point out what are the steps needed to correct the issues. You cannot just do a drive-by tagging on the basis that you do not like it. Point out what needs to be fixed, or else remove the POV tag. Unflavoured (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only apologise for my prior tone; please accept my heartfelt apologies. I'm sure neither of us wants those discretionary sanctions slapped on me! "You seem to be under the impression..." I feel my actual purpose has been misunderstood, for it was not my intention to claim it was your responsibility to make the corrections you deemed necessary. If you don't want to make an edit, don't—Wikipedia participation is entirely voluntary, after all. What I had meant to do, as I thought was clear, was infer—incorrectly, I am told—the depth of your concern from your inaction. "I don't think 972mag is..." You are entitled to your opinion of +972, of course, but the root source was the Twitter feed of Ofir Gendelman. I always try to learn from my mistakes, and so I'll make sure next time to put a url to the root source to save us both some typing. "[Y]ou used 'sardonic' where the source uses 'sarcastic'" The source? only one? I see two, the first of which describes it as a 'mocking' letter. I simply felt the word took into account the aggregate description of the letter's content. I felt this complaint was unwarranted, but it was dutifully attended to without reflection by Jabotito48. To his credit, his actions indicate that he too disagrees with your implied view that someone only cedes responsibility for a section of an article when they have written strictly less than or equal to fifty percent of its content. "The source you used as a ref for the Netanyahu statement..." Indeed. Upon inspection, it appears I cited the wrong Times of Israel article. I thank you sincerely for bringing the mistake to my attention, and it has been dealt with. INN is generally an unacceptable source; however, for something so small, I couldn't see the harm. I am forced to concede one point: "It's a simple matter of the article saying what the source says." For some reason, my instinctive reaction is to immediately attempt to contradict you. On this occasion, I should have agreed with you. "[W]e're at 3:0 at this point", thus the tag may be there for quite a while!
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Section "Welcome to Palestine" is an unreadable mess

I have formatted the section with the following scheme, without removing any content.

• Israel's response and statements, and "pro-Israel" organizations.
• Claims of organizers, counter-arguments by others, collateral effects on other passengers.

I have also removed the POV tag, since it is 3 years old. I do not see any active discussion now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)