Jump to content

Talk:Free Gaza Movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Separation

[edit]

Seems that people within the organization cannot get along: http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/aipac There have been recent edits to the original formation of the organization which is now not so surprising after reading the link. Does anyone want to tackle putting this info in the article?Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problems w/recent changes to the page - re: History section

[edit]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that the first paragraph of the "History" section of the page for the Free Gaza Movement is incorrect, unsourced, and hardly neutral. The page is located at:

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

The paragraph currently states:

"The group was founded by a group of activists and Palestinians from the International Solidarity Movement, a front organization for the PLO and now Hamas."

This is both untrue and unsourced. It continues:

"The boats have Iranian "journalists" on board who are from Iran's Press TV who are most likely Iranian agents."

Again, this is untrue & unsourced. There were two journalists (Aki Nawal & Yvonne Ridley) from Press TV on the first voyage in August 2008, and none since then. Both Aki & Yvonne are public figures in the UK - hardly agents.

The paragraph continues:

"The purpose is to open the sea lanes controlled by Israel in order to facilitate the smuggling of weapons to Hamas by sea."

In fact, the Free Gaza Movement is a peaceful organization engaging in non-violent direct action. Our ships have been searched by Cypriot authorities prior to each voyage, and all participants sign a document pledging to be nonviolent in word & deed before getting on board our ships.

It continues:

"The first voyage had no "humanitairan" supplies and since then gods brought in have only been symbolic. Huwaida Arraf, the Free Gaza leader has declared her support for suicide bombers as "legitinate resistance" and admitted at two ISM conference that the ISM works with Hamas, PFLP and Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Iranian-supported terror group.Human rights is only a diversion to aid terror groups. The most recent voyage on June 25, 2009 tried to bring cement as is used for weapons smuggling tunnels and bunkers."

Look, I don't really feel a need to "prove" that this nonsense is untrue. This paragraph was recently changed/added to our entry. It is self-observably ridiculous and offensive. Please either source these claims or remove the paragraph.

Cheers, Free Gaza Movement http://www.FreeGaza.org


Don't worry about it too much. One editor threw in some poor information and no one caught it initially (stood for less than 48 hours). Take a look at the page's history and you'll will see that it was a single individual and that it is now fixed.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
truegreta is now engaged in edit waring. The Conflict if Interest notice is at the top of the page since she is with the organization. Please feel free to see the lengthy and detailed discussion + warnings on the user's talk page User talk:Truegreta. Any ideas on how to make this less heated would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion (which you might already be doing at this moment) is to back off, because an edit war can only exist if more than one person participates. I've seen many times when 2 editors are both blocked for 3RR even when one of the editors is clearly in the wrong with their edits (due to POV, lack of sources, etc.). If at some point you need to report the other person for edit-warring it will strengthen your case if you've stayed above it. Also remember that there's no time limit on the article, especially if you keep a watch on it; even if the "bad" edits stay for a day or two you can remove them later. Don't risk being cited for a violation yourself even if you have the best of motives. -- Atamachat 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. for now, the Conflict of Interest tag is off the article and I won't restore it based on the 3rr policy (just in case).Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late June sailing

[edit]

So far nothing has been independently verified regarding the urgent update recently included. Does some sort of disclaimer need to be in the wording ("According to..." or something similar)? Israel should have a response to the press releases shortly so am not too worried about it but am concerned some readers will take this "breaking news" as fact (which it may be). Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have updated the section with information from Reuters, which may not have existed when you wrote. A web search will find articles on Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post, along with many others. Hopefully it can be expanded and further updated given time. Wavehunter (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the first couple hours it was just Free Gaza's press release out there. Israeli military has finally said some stuff, too..Cptnono (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV concern

[edit]

The following has been removed with the edit summary "rv pov - biased wording".

Israel considers the waters along the Gaza Strip an Israeli controlled security zone in accordance with internationally recognized agreements with the Palestinian Authority.[1]

The organization says that it is international waters in the previous line "According to the organization, the boats have been and will continue to go directly from international waters into the waters of Gaza." It is not POV to let the reader know that the assertion that it is international waters is disputed. It is sourced and not given undue weight. Frank;y, I'm astonished that an editor would remove this without first attempting to improve it.Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I have removed the information asserting that the waters are international. If this information is too much detail for the lead a section describing the overall goals and ins and outs of the project would be beneficial to the article.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion is not that Gaza waters are international. It is that they abut international waters, and the route went from one to the other without going through Israel's agreed territorial waters. Please restore the correct statement.Cherlin (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call the Pro Palestinians also Anti-Israeli both Chomsky and Tutu fit that categoryUnicorn76 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not NPOV. One can say that specific elements of Israeli government and outside commentators or groups hold this view (with references), but not that it is fact. It is, for example, a historical fact that Israel supported the White Supremacist Apartheid government of South Africa, including the avowed Nazi supporter B. J. Vorster, and that Desmond Tutu opposed both Apartheid and the Israeli occupation. Opposing improper actions and policies of Israel is, however, a pro-Israel position, according to Chomsky, Tutu, and others.Cherlin (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you are talking about labelling them as "anti-israeli". If so shall we make a separate section, rather than including it in a section about something totally different. It might just be simplest to remove both pro-palestinian and anti-israeli from the lead and let readers make up their own mind. The source I added earlier could be used elsewhere to say that commentators say they are anti-israel. Smartse (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shalit

[edit]

"The family of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit offered the organizers of the flotilla full support provided that "in addition to their demand that Israel lift its blockade they will urge Hamas to allow the soldier to receive letters and food packages from his family and allow international organizations to visit him". According to Attorney Nick Kaufman, who approached the Free Gaza Movement on behalf of the kidnapped soldier's family the offer was refused.[35] According to the Free Gaza Movement's web site, they "were first contacted by lawyers representing Shalit's family May 26 evening, just hours before they were set to depart from Greece. Irish Senator Mark Daly (Kerry), one of 35 parliamentarians joining the flotilla, agreed to carry any letter or package and to attempt to deliver it to Shalit or, if that request was denied, deliver it to John Ging, Director of UNRWA in Gaza. As of May 28 evening the lawyers have not responded to Sen. Daly""

Their response has several problems. I found a secondary source that says: "Both of the papers published articles stated that “organizers decline carrying a package to Gilad shalit” However, this turned untrue. I spoke with a number of organizers like ECESG and people from the Free Gaza Movement. They both said, “No one contacted us”. We are ready to take this package to Shalit. But in return, we need a commitment from Israel to allow Palestinian families to visit their sons, brothers, sisters, children, women in the dozens of Israeli jails."[1]

So using the Free Gaza website now violates WP:SELFPUB

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think the wording needs work, and there is no need to repeat everything Free Gaza says, I think it is allowable, and necessary for neutrality to include their denial that of refusal and statement of an offer to carry a package.John Z (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

"According to the Free Gaza Movement's Web site, the group intended for the boat to enter the Israeli declared "special security zone" in the hope of provoking a clash and being arrested by the Israeli navy."

The Ha'aretz source does say "The organizers thereby hope to provoke a clash with the navy that will end with them being forcibly arrested," and the sentence is placed in such a manner that it implies this came from the group's website. But I looked over all the website content from that time, and could not find any statement to this effect -- on the contrary, there are repeated statements of intent to "break the siege," get into Gaza, deliver aid, etc. It does say that they expected they might be stopped by the Israeli navy, but I didn't find anything about hoping to provoke a clash.

I would suggest this statement should be removed. If not, I would at least suggest that Ha'aretz's rendering of the group's motive be paired next to the group's actual rendering of its own motives, perhaps citing the website directly. EvanHarper (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I personally don't recall any sources where they say that the intent is to provoke a reaction only comments by others alleging so. That was probably a merging of two different sources into one line that was botched. Oops. It looks like that is exactly what the source says. I don't know if that is the sources opinion or reporting. Probably rewrite it to say that Haaretz said "xyz" about the movement's plans.Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried it out. Kept your tag in just in case the edit was not sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ha'aretz did say that was their intention. I've added an outright statement, sourced, to the effect of "we don't want Israel to stop us" and removed the tag. EvanHarper (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the free gaza movement started in 2006

[edit]

how can it be in response to the blockade, which began in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.26.45 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Attack on the Free Gaza flotilla into this article

[edit]

I believe that Attack on the Free Gaza flotilla should be merged into this article, as it is probably not notable enough to stand as a separate article. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strongly oppose Each stands on its own and separately Aa42john (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There will be some recentism conscerns over here but it should be easy enough to figure out.Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it now.
Nonsense. The attack is too important to be hidden here.vvarkey (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way to add this out of chronological order after it was already yielded. That seems like nonsense to me.Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way to rush this after giving it 8 minutes of discussion time. vvarkey (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations form other article for easy reference: 1. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html 2. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896416,00.html 3. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html

Well a new user decided to revert. I assume an article can be made. Don't know if it is needed. If anything, it will be snippets from here as a background section, a full account, and maybe an extra section on intl reaction instead of a paragraph about it. I'm open to merging or keeping separate based on what everyone else thinks.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The huge talk page on the other article Attack on the Free Gaza flotilla was cover up by clean page. What it mean here discussion ./? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other article had a huge talk page? Was it removed in the attempted redirect?Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was removed because it was quite informative. But above may be a 'legitimate reason' to those who think other can't see through gun powder smoke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are you accusing me of intentionally deleting information? You should not do that. I actually take some offense to it so maybe you should reconsider if that is what you are saying.Cptnono (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accuse you (by the way who you are?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Cptnono as my signature says. You can type your signature with 4 tildes (~~~~) Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the tildes was high enough to cover it up. There exist useful automation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose, the killings is enough to be in its own article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not merge, IMO. Spøkelse (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose these articles are just going to expand, expand and expand in the next few days, see the # of edits in the last few hours.Lihaas (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The clash article is going to have a lot of other information not directly relevant to the Free Gaza Movement page.Publicus (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. High profile incidents within any ongoing campaign merit their own articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strongly oppose, Nonsense. The attack is too important to be hidden here.vvarkey (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. For reasons mentioned above, including loss of life, media coverage, mass of international responses this generated (and rightfully so, its a big deal). An act of merging the two pages is a huge blow to NPOV as it will bury it in an irrelevant location, downplaying its importance, thoroughness, etc. --Eyas (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation (The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief)

[edit]

I draw the attention to this factbox report by Reuters on IHH, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U4SO20100601, as a balance to the report by Washington Post and Telegraph in the first section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's required is a neutral description. What has happened here is an edit has cherry-picked a negative description of the group and loaded that into the lead. First, does this belong in the lead? If so, propose replacing the biased selection with something based on "Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) is an Islamic charity group that was formed to provide aid to Bosnian Muslims in the mid-1990s. It has been involved in aid missions in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Indonesia, Iraq, Palestinian territories and other places" per Reuters and other media descriptions of IHH. And taking it out of the lead. RomaC (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Another editor threw that in at the event page as well and it was removed. I have trimmed it substantially. I kept in that Israel has made the charge and used in the paragraph that discusses the solidarity movement. The lead needs some work. There is at least some balance between peacocky who supports them and who is with them and Israel's concern now.Cptnono (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements are sourced and legitimate concerns to those entities but I think it should be added to a Reception section and taken from the lead. In the Reception section we could place positive, neutral and negative evaluations of the group. The lead can say something like The group is controversial and seen as both a threat and a savior organization This then refers in general to the following reception section. Sound good? We need varied evaluations and opinions of the group added. Alatari (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

[edit]

How come there is no mention of the movement being funded by William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Jodie Evans?[2] Truthsort (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is there no mention of the fact that Greta Berlin, one of the group's organizers, admits that $368,000 US for the Rachel Corrie trip came from Mahathir Mohamad, a man with a sorted history of Anti-Semitic comments: Mahathir Mohamad? Here's a link to an AP wire story. http://www.todayonline.com/BreakingNews/EDC100604-0000026/Free-Gaza-co-founder-says-group-turned-down-an-offer-of-a-donation-from-Iran

This is Mahathir Mohamad's entry on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_bin_Mohamad 173.32.78.128 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

I am removing the line from International Solidartiy Movement. Instead of finding a secondary RS after it was tagged, a new user instead decided to remove the tag. It is a violation of WP:SELFPUB since the organizations work together and it is a press release that is unduly self-serving and it involves claims about third parties. There is also reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Since Free Gaza is not RS and is biased there is reasonable doubt that what they say is authentic. Furthermore, it is undue weight. It is also worded with a huge POV slant. If a rebuttal is necessary, I suggest editors find a secondary RS. I also suggest that they word it in a more neutral tone. Overall, this paragraph doesn't deserve much weight anyways. New editors should also read the guidelines before removing text since the inappropriate removal of a tag would have prevented no info being included at all. Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "new user."
It is reasonable to doubt whether the claim, "Mr Kaufman's statement is a blatant lie as part of a disinformation campaign" is true. But I don't think that's what "authenticity" is supposed to mean in WP:SELFPUB. I'm pretty sure it's intended to mean authenticity as a statement by the group in question. I don't see any doubt that the cited source is, in fact, a press release from Free Gaza. So I don't see "authenticity" as an issue.
I don't see the material as "unduly self-serving." I take "unduly self-serving" to refer to claims like, "Mr. Jones is widely viewed as one of America's leading artists," cited to Mr. Jones' web page. The statement in question clearly is intended to be self-exonerating, but I don't see what's "undue" about it. Kaufman made an accusation against them, and they said it wasn't true. How is that "unduly self-serving?"
I'm not sure what "claims about third parties" are implicated here. I suppose one could go from "the statement [by Mr. Kaufman] is a lie" to "Mr. Kaufman is a liar," which would be problematic. If the sharp tone of the quote is an issue, it can simply be paraphrased -- instead of "the group called it a 'blatant lie' as part of a 'disinformation campaign,'" we could say, "the group denied Mr. Kaufman's statement, calling it misleading." Surely, merely disagreeing with a person's statement is not a "claim about third parties."
You have not explained why you think the statement is unduly weighted; it is a two-sentence direct response to the preceding two-sentence accusation. Effectively, you are saying that including a nasty allegation about the group is perfectly acceptable, but including the group's response is undue weight. I hardly find this convincing.
I do not see what is POV about the text as it stood. Clearly, the group itself was expressing strong opinions. The text reported on those strong opinions, but did not endorse them. That is perfectly appropriate. For example, in the preceding paragraph, an Israeli official is quoted saying, "They are engaged in only one thing, and that is to create provocations and to collaborate with Hamas propaganda." That is obviously an extremely strong POV, but it is not a problem with WP:NPOV, because it is just passing on what the Israeli official claimed, without endorsing it. It is clearly in the spirit of WP:POV.
Finally, I do not appreciate your arrogant tone, your edit summary about "pov edits," your false implication that I have not read the relevant guidelines, and your "escalating" attitude towards this disagreement (ie, you disagreed with my removal of a warning tag, so you retaliated not be restoring the tag but by deleting the entire sentence.) Please reconsider whether this is appropriate behavior. EvanHarper (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for uninvolved feedback on this disagreement. EvanHarper (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I think the use of the International Solidarity Movement's own newsletter, to report the situation as they see it — thus providing balance and furthering NPOV — is OK here. Yes, it arguably falls under WP:SELFPUB, but its use seems to reasonably meet the conditions for allowing self-published sources as I understand them. I see a major difference between quoting material from a pro-Gaza source like this and, say, quoting a self-published "patriot" fringe blog in an attempt to lend credibility to anti-Obama "birthers".

Almost by definition of this situation, each side's positions are going to seem self-serving, disingenuous, and wildly POV to people on the other side. I think it would be even better if the cite of the ISM newsletter could be replaced by a good-quality secondary source (possibly something reported in an established newspaper from an Arab country), but I'm not really disturbed by quoting the ISM directly here if a secondary source can't easily be found.

I will say that I was a bit concerned about whether the less-than-positive reference to the Shalit family and their lawyer (Nick Kaufman) — the "blatant lie" part — might be crossing the line into forbidden territory per WP:BLP. Upon reflection, I don't think this is a problem, but some discussion about this might possibly be worth having, just to be sure.—Richwales (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 3O. I have a lot less worries with the source if it is paraphrased or trimmed. There is a whole essay talking about quotes improperly introducing POV when paraphrasing would be preferred but I can't find it at the moment. And I still think the whole paragraph (even with what is just in now) is too much weight and borders on scandal mongering. Apologies for calling you a "new user". Unfortunate assumption from the red link and floods of other new users in the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about,
The group strongly denied this, saying they had always called for the release of all prisoners, including Palestinian prisoners in Israel, and that they had accepted Mr. Kaufman's request but had not heard back from him since.
EvanHarper (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have impatiently implemented my own suggestion, since it sounds like we're a lot closer to agreement than I thought. EvanHarper (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, should have responded sooner. Yeah, that change was fine.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planned spring 2011 sailing

[edit]

I recommend creating a new section to address the planned 2011 sailing. Suggested text follows:

According to the website of the Free Gaza movement, a sailing to Gaza is being planned for the spring of 2011.[6] The usatogaza.org website reports that new applications to sail with the vessel, expected to be named The Audacity of Hope, can no longer be processed.[7]

132.64.188.17 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand using the template and then making speculative statements - the whole point is that we shouldn't include speculation. I'd say we should wait until the planned voyage is mentioned by the media (2ndry sources) before adding it to the article. SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's anything wrong with the speculation, so long as it's newsworthy. Anyway, per your reply, I Googled ["Audacity of hope" gaza], and it turns out the story did get attention in the mainstream press: ‘The Audacity of Hope’ to set sail (Jerusalem Post), Gaza boat to be named 'audacity of hope' (Washington Post), Khalidi’s Audacity of Hope (National Review), to name three. The suggested text'll have to be reworded, but I still the new section's called for. Even if the boat doesn't actually sail, the fact that there was a failed campaign should also be recorded as part of history.132.64.188.36 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? None of those sources mention that a voyage will occur in 2011, which is what we were discussing, wasn't it? As you say there's nothing wrong with speculation "so long as it's newsworthy" but that means we need a newspaper story to report the planned voyage before including it. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what those articles were doing – reporting the planned voyage. Anyway, now there are more concrete reports about the anticipated flotilla, so there's reason to consider a "Planned 2011 flotilla" section again. Irish Times: Israel seeks aid of diplomats to prevent flotilla going to Gaza (23 March 2011); Ha'aretz: Turkey group plans new Gaza flotilla with at least 15 ships (22 March 2011); and there's this from 15 March: UK Muslim Brotherhood Coalition To Participate In Next Gaza Flotilla.—Biosketch (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced quotation mark

[edit]

In the second paragraph there's a lone quotation mark right at the end.132.64.188.17 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Deleted it.—Biosketch (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV/unsourced claim: human rights organization?

[edit]

"The Free Gaza movement is a coalition of human rights organizations and activists...." The claim is highly suspect. Where is the source for it? None is suggested in the article. If a source cannot be produced, a less biased description would be preferable - potentially "The Free Gaza movement is a coalition of pro-Palestinian organizations and activists." That would sound much less partial.—Biosketch (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed, except the BBC has it the other way around: human rights activists, pro-Palestinian organizations.—Biosketch (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oops...fixed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 212.179.140.194, 13 June 2011

[edit]

Hello, May 2010 sailing, the last sentence state that commandos were arrested for stealing laptops. This is untrue, 2 soldiers were arrested but they were not part of the commando operation. they stole the laptops after they were on land with other equipment on the docs.

Thanks

212.179.140.194 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GaneshBhakt (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism and controversy

[edit]

Greta Berlin, one of the movement's founders, recently posted a link to a video of a speech blaming Jews for the Holocaust on the Free Gaza movement's Twitter feed. She later apologized for sending it by mistake. The feed had previously posted a link to a 1943 Nazi propaganda film Im Wald von Katyn. See http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/gaza-flotilla-sponsor-blames-jews-for-holocaust-on-twitter. 220.255.2.38 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget BLP and NPOV policies when describing such controversies. Re-edited new material in that vein. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some more information on the controversy, including another statement by Berlin giving a completely different reason for why she posted that stuff, including a refutation by a well known pro-Palestinian activist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published blogs not suitable for BLP. CarolMooreDC 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blog post links to the statement on the freegaza.org website, and they're RS for their own statements. As is Ali Abunimah (attributed) for what he saw on the page they're talking about. If you don't want to put it in the article, I will. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
all looks like it was well edited and sourced. Soosim (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freegaza is OK for saying it removed the quote and I already had that in there. But it's not reliable for saying what 3rd parties were up to, and it may just be wrong in this case, for whatever reason. So that's not reliable either.
Now if you want to say that Ali Abunimah self-published factoids and opinions on any and all pro-Israeli activists, leaders, etc. in their BLPs or other articles is now acceptable and WP:RS are willing to defend that point on WP:BLPN, I might be willing to agree and add his opinions/factoids to a bunch of relevant BLPs. So which is it?? (Won't that be a fun WP:RSN; here's the 2008 discussion mentioning Ali Abunimah or search the several discussions on use of his The Electronic Intifada. I think we'll find a lot of people speak against either as being WP:RS, especially for BLP. Consistent application of WP:RS is all I'm asking for. CarolMooreDC 06:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Carolmooredc. Self published source is not suitable for making claims about a third party in a WP:BLP. If his opinion has been published by a third party RS it can be included otherwise it has to go I am afraid. Dlv999 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the status of The Daily Beast as an RS, but that is the best I could find for Abunimah's opinion on this [3]. Should also note that the DB piece balances Abuminah's opinion with those that support Birlin's position so that would have to be reflected in the text if we use it as a source. Dlv999 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't "Self published source is not suitable for making claims about a third party" also apply to most advocacy groups (except where exceptions made at WP:RSN), like Jewish Voice for Peace?? CarolMooreDC 01:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The freegaza.org quote is an official response on the official website of the subject of this article. I don't see how it's possible to say it's not reliable for the position of the organization. Similarly, Jewish Voice for Peace are describing their position regarding the subject of this article and are certainly RS for that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. Now that more reliable sources are trotting out to comment, it's not even necessary. CarolMooreDC 17:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with CarolMooreDC lets just stick to policy and use third party RS. WP:BLP is pretty clear that self published sources are not for material about third parties. Birlin is not a member of JVP thus she is a third party. If you want to report JVP opinion on Birlin you need a third party RS that reports it as notable and relevant. Dlv999 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep getting confused which page I'm on but forgot to write in the edit summary that this was pretty much the same version as I put in her bio. I think it tells the story, keeps the important refs, and is not WP:Undue POV pushing for partisan purposes. CarolMooreDC 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it's NPOV to add Larry Derfner's self published claim that the facebook page the video was posted in was doing what Berlin said it was, but it's not ok to use Abunimah's self published claim that he looked at the page and it was doing nothing of the sort, even when Derfner quotes him? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abunimah looked at the wrong facebook page. We wouldn't need to mention the 16 people at all, except that several people insisted on Abunimah's take and therefore it was necessary to prove it wrong, including if people try to reinsert it. Derfner was initially put in by others and I see he has been an actual mainstream reporter. Also, one clearly can see from the JTA screen shot that "“Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews.” is the title of the video NOT her commentary on it. There are at least four different copies of the speech with that title on youtube. CarolMooreDC 23:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Abunimah stuff was removed before you added the Derfner stuff, so what exactly are you "proving wrong"? Drefner claims Abunimah was looking at the wrong group. So now we have a bunch of Drefner stuff (also self-published, but I guess that's not a problem when you like the content) but no Abunimah, despite Drefner quoting him. You are so deep into POV pushing here, it's not even funny. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought it was a bigger problem for the Free Gaza Movement's apology to be used to explain that the "small private group" she referred to in her own apology here which we should also use was "was shared with a group of people who were discussing propaganda and racism, and this link was an example of the terrible propaganda that could be spewed on websites." Now it occurs to me that if she's a "spokesperson" for the group, the group would not have printed that without her OKing it. But is that original research?? Now the better source that details everything - including her explanation - is Mondoweiss and people can go there an read all the convoluted details if they want. So would the below be acceptable to you?

Berlin has been accused of being antisemitic following a controversial tweet, originating from her Facebook account, and published under the account of the Free Gaza Movement. The tweet read “Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews" and contained a link to a video of that name, a speech by conspiracy theorist Eustace Mullins asserting that Zionists are responsible for the Holocaust and are admirers of Hitler.[8][9] The Free Gaza Movement later deleted the tweet.[10] Berlin apologized once the post became known to a wider audience. She declared that she had "shared it without watching it."[11][12] According to the Free Gaza Movement apology the post was "from Greta's private Facebook page and was shared with a group of people who were discussing propaganda and racism, and this link was an example of the terrible propaganda that could be spewed on websites."[10] Various discussions of this explanation ensued.[13][14] In response the Jewish Voice for Peace group distanced itself from Berlin and the Free Gaza Movement.[13]

References

  1. ^ Sweigart, Chris (2009-07-01). "Cynthia McKinney, 20 Others, Held by Israel". 11Alive. WXIA-TV. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  2. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2914131.htm?section=world
  3. ^ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html
  4. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896416,00.html
  5. ^ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html
  6. ^ "Freegaza - News section". Retrieved 7 February 2011. We're getting ready to go again in the Spring. And we need your support. Follow us on Witnessgaza.com; join us on twitter and Facebook, then donate to help us.
  7. ^ "USATOGAZA". Retrieved 7 February 2011. THE APPLICATION PROCESS TO SAIL ON THE U.S. BOAT TO GAZA, THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, IS NOW CLOSED. THANK YOU TO ALL WHO APPLIED.
  8. ^ Benjamin Weinthal (October 4, 2012). "Free Gaza Group: Zionists Ran Concentration Camps". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved October 7, 2012.
  9. ^ "Flotilla Sponsor Tweets that Zionists Helped Perpetrate the Holocaust". JTA. October 4, 2012. Retrieved October 7, 2012.
  10. ^ a b Apology Regarding Tweet, Free Gaza Movement website, October 4, 2012.
  11. ^ Tristin Hopper (October 4, 2012). "Free Gaza Group: Zionists Ran Concentration Camps". National Post. Retrieved October 7, 2012.
  12. ^ Greta Berlin statement on Free Gaza Movement website, October 5, 2012.
  13. ^ a b Alex Kane, Free Gaza Movement Twitter controversy leads Jewish Voice for Peace to distance itself from group, Mondoweiss, October 8, 2012
  14. ^ Larry Derfner (October 6, 2012). "Head of Free Gaza Movement: Anti-Semitic Video In Question is 'Disgusting'". 972. Retrieved October 7, 2012.

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found two articles in the JPost about this. [4] [5]. I also found this which may or may not be RS. I believe the JP is actually RS as opposed to what we've been using so far (except for organizations making statements about themselves). The section should be written using these. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The JP articles may have additional info of relevance [added later:but I don't see that have superior new info on issues already covered]. However, they should not be the sole refs. For one thing, both fail to note the actual name of the video, as made clear on early WP:RS, is "Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews.” And neither mentions explanation that it was in the context of a private group discussing examples of racism/etc. Perhaps being an Israeli paper, they have some bias or other? Anyway, others do. National Post opinion piece just a rant. I'm busy today and tomorrow but will try to fit in time to look at it all, definitely by Saturday. CarolMooreDC 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the JP, a mainstream newspaper that's undoubtedly RS, may have "some bias or other", but Derfner, an activist, writing in +972Mag, an activist group blog, is not only free of bias but qualifies as RS? Did I get that right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nmmng - i think you hit the nail on the head.... Soosim (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a mainstream publication leaves out important facts, but a professional reporter puts them in, I think we can assume there is the possiblity of bias, especially if the paper represents a foreign country that is criticized. Note that I originally had a problem with Defner and others defended him and I realized he is a professional. As I said above - and it would be helpful if you responed to constructive part of post and not Just nitpick some other part - I don't think Defner has to be used since it can be assumed that Free Gaza's statement that the message was supposed to be posted to a nonpublic site discussion racism/etc. and that Berlin as a spokesperson of the group ok'd it. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we take the JPost and the rest to RS/N? I really don't see a reason to address your claim that JPost is not RS because it's an Israeli publication here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why take a false claim to WP:RSN? I forgot to mention above that I added later to clarify: [added later:but I don't see that have superior new info on issues already covered]. Also I implied there was new material that could be used. And in fact taking a quick look again I do see a some new info from the articles that could be added, if not done in the WP:Undue manner than certain editors have with these sorts of allegations; waiting to see if YOU added it; I'm a bit burned out on both these articles myself. CarolMooreDC 14:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to JVP, it started as a long quote vs 3rd parties which vs WP:RS. Actually now it is just a statement that they've disassociated themselves, which is not wp:undue. One gets confused sometimes with so many edits and so little time. So as is not an issue if stays as is. And WP:RS of Mondoweiss can be discussed somewhere more of an issue. CarolMooreDC 19:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPNoticeboard

[edit]

FYI. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Greta_Berlin:_Gossip_and_Feedback_Loops_from_poor_WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

[edit]

"Nick Kaufman" should be changed for "Nick Kaufman" on account of an existing link Toolson1968 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kharkiv07Talk 11:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Free Gaza Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Free Gaza Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Free Gaza Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Free Gaza Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_Gaza_Movement&oldid=1206233831"