Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza flotilla raid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

POV issues

Regarding the sentence :"Following the clash, Israeli naval forces began towing the flotilla's vessels to Ashdod, from where the passengers are to be deported.[12] Israel said humanitarian aid confiscated from the ships would be transferred to Gaza, but Israel would not transfer "banned" items such as cement.[4]" It seems unclear why "banned" would be in quotation marks. Regardless of one's belief in the morality or international legality of such a ban, it clearly does exist. The quotation marks are apparently intended to suggest that the ban is somehow illegitimate, but serve instead to suggest that is someone something other than a ban. 98.239.145.229 (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is writing this article, it seems as if passengers are members of criminal gang and so police has walked into a neighborhood and suddenly 19 people are dead. Please at least take note of the tone of the article. --yousaf465 07:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reformatted it. The news is only a couple hours old (at most). Wikipeida isn't news anyways. Give it a bit while it is all put together. And acording to the video from Al Jazeera, the activists were meek while BBC footage clearly shows some rough stuff form their side. So right now it is pretty up in the air who is to blame (if anyone).Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono bias: you say "BBC footage clearly shows some rough stuff form (the passengers') side. So right now it is pretty up in the air who is to blame (if anyone)." I have looked at BBC and listened to BBC. There has been no such allegation. What sort of 'rough stuff' do you mean. Do you mean it was rougher than the Israeli's stuff? Who anyhow initiated the attack? You seem v. biassed. NPOV cannot be neutral between the attacker and his victim. It is clear that here Israel is the attacker.

Just clarifying, you are saying that Israel is the attacker when constantly their citizens are under attack from their Arab neighbours? When their goal was to prevent weapons from getting into terrorists hands? When there were many legal and appropriate actions that activists could have taken? - Look at the facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.79.126 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

82.3.206.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Did you watch the video? Dudes were clubbing the hell out of the guy. That is only my interpretation. Good thing Bloomberg and other sources second it.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Clubbing" is quite different from shooting. Anyway, let's not bring politics here. Also, I think the number of casualties should be updated. Mar4d (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree regarding the POV issue. You'll want to talk to User:Jalapenos do exist who has been editing it. Obviously he's as much writing it as you are, or anyone else who wants to would be. Prodego ^talk 07:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying with a few things that might appear minor. For instance, I just reverted a new account who blanked info. It is perfectly fine info that has multiple sources from what I have seen. However, it needed an "according to" to assert that it isn't fact. Give ti time. Poke around yourself. Hopefully we can keep this neutral and not frustrating.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have to mention which side is giving that info, otherwise it will just turn into a POV article.--yousaf465 07:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Someone again removed the gun line so I will reach into my magic bag of tricks and add it. For now since it is so fresh, controversial, and newsey we should certainly say "IDF radio reports" or whatever.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The "According to" helps, but the account of the clash as it stands still only quotes Israeli and government sources. Wouldn't it appropriate to also quote the statement in the linked Al Jazeera article that, according to the Free Gaza leadership, the soldiers opened fire as soon as they boarded? Fluidchameleon (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See the main movement article. I made sure to mention both. On this article however, one editor started and new accounts and IPs jumped in blanking content and vandalizing. Completely agree that the movements official word is required to balance it out.Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be better to create a seprate Israeli section so that the official IDF account can be freely documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.193.236 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

the "free gaza movement" was not a belligerent and the massacre was not a "clash". the article is very POV.--Severino (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has (just - after you posted) been moved to "Gaza flotilla interception". Also, note that "belligerent" when formally used does not imply "aggressor", simply a party to a ... well, to whatever this is. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

well the free gaza movement was not part of a battle or so , they were -in terms of armament, military training and so on- not coequal with the israeli military, they didn't seek a confrontation with them.--Severino (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Belligerent" when formally used does not imply "aggressor"; it implies a party in a ... whatever we're currently saying this is. Equality of armaments etc doesn't enter into it. Neither does whether or not they sought a conflict, or initiated it, or whatever. "Belligerent" here means "one of the parties". Nothing more. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, a rape victim and a rapist are both belligerents then.--Severino (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Very loaded analogy there.

Anyway, yes, if the rape victim fights back. Except that, from what I understand about the word, it doesn't seem to apply to single instances of conflict. If the rape victim starts hunting for her (I'm assuming it's "her") attacker and there's this whole movie about them meeting at various places and fighting it out until one of them escapes each time until finally she corners him and kills him, then yes, it would be a major conflict that can label the two of them as "belligerents". --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

just a thing. It's turkish demonstrators tried to storm the Israeli embassy, not strom. (72.91.125.32 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Secondary sources

The ABC link is secondary source if I'm correct, as Israel's private channel 10 television gave that info but didn't gave the source of its information. --yousaf465 07:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what line? I have a list of sources in front of me that can hopefully clear up who said it.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mentioned the link, anyway it here At least 10 dead' as Israel storms freedom flotilla. I was talking about the the ABC link in the reaction section. --yousaf465 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a neutral-point-of-view article. Firstly, "attacked" should be replaced with "boarded". The Israelis did not attack, they boarded, and to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza, which is exactly what the Israelis said they would do. The violence was created by the "activists" trying to lynch the Israelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsilverm (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Youtube as source ?

You can't use youtube as a source. --yousaf465 08:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the assault video, they just landed without any resistant and then one guy fires with his pistol. --yousaf465 08:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few good ones. The BBC one is over at the main movement article. The Aljazeera one that kicked off the media storm is alright. But no Youtube. Citeepisode over infringing copyright.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The othersUtubbed video claim the 16 of sixteen committed suicide as usually, just thy didn't explode the explosives, too wet to high tides on sea) . However it may be low grade instruction how to direct the PR campaign. Quite useful stuff, but the late comments for IDF spokesman about stubbed solders conflict somehow this video. It make only sense if only they sutubed themselves too. Ai 00 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh... couldn't you please write it in simple English. ? --yousaf465 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I agree that it may be misleading: utubed versus stubbed. Ai 00 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the part about the people stubbing/commiting suicide themselves is more controversial than calling the ship passengers "evil" in current circumstance. This content should be the last thing to add in an article that is already not large enough currently and lacks so much information. Mar4d (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Massacre

This article should be moved to "Gaza flotilla Massacre" as it has been called so by many sources. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of these are quotes, blogs, or other pages referencing other conflicts entirely. I disagree with this justification for moving the page, though if a reasonable one could be found I would support that.LazySofa (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking SD?Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "massacre" is a frequent question on the English Wikipedia. So far, the conclusions have been that:
1) The term "massacre" is vague, and the best definition we have is that a massacre is an event that's commonly called a massacre. We can't determine that before the press settles on a common name for this event.
2) It's really hard for us to discuss it calmly. Instead we tend to uphold that proud Wikipedia tradition of having huge fights that soon cease to be about the matter entirely and start being about the fights.
Since we can't make such a decision yet, I suggest that we chill out and come back in a month to see how things go. --Kiz o r 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally a massacre is a mass killing of innocents. The victims in this case can't be classified as innocents since they apparently provoked the israeli forces.

Maybe that is your own generalisation?? Mar4d (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any neutral first-hand sources of provocations, it's only IDF statements. LarRan (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New section

I putted Swedish pres article: Sweden calls on Israel to clarify aid convoy attack, but was quickly replaced with one from Israeli press. The attack happened on international waters so coverage may be from all countries. Right? Ai 00 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Start new sections with == ==. You do not appear to understand how to use Wikipedia. Can you go over to the movement page and fix your formatting errors or do you mind if I remove them? Of course intl coverage is acceptable. Your edit may have been ammended for other reasons though. Can you provide a diff (click on History, click in the bubbles next to your edit and the one above it, hit compare, copy the link in the toolbar, provide it here)Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't, this maze of options and rules we have isn't something we can expect newcomers to know right away. Feel free to go ahead and fix formatting errors when you see them without having to ask. --Kiz o r 09:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But when he starts making sweeping controversial changes with bad formatting it turns into me just reverting. So Ai 00, your attempt didn't work. Can you try posting the link to the source ere and saying what line you are adding it to?Cptnono (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The link is on the top of this section. (the first line ) Do you need bigger chandelier to see it ? Again: Sweden calls on Israel to clarify aid convoy attack Ai 00 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed activists?

I see that someone has added a claim to the lead that the activists were armed. I gather this is something the IDF has claimed, but we shouldn't endorse either side's claims here. We can report it - I've added a line to the lead to reflect the claim - but we cannot state it as fact at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to swear? So fill in what you want: THIS IS A CLUSTER... We have addressed this over two articles. There are multiple sources. It was overly attributed. Was it removed by a vandal or something? What the hell man? It is claimed that a protester grabbed a gun and fired rounds.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we simply don't know the full facts. All we have are conflicting claims from two self-interested parties each intent on blaming the other. In such circumstances we cannot endorse one side's claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"I gather this is something the IDF has claimed" You need to start gathering what the sources say. Remove it from the lead if you want but also spend the time googling over complaining on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono please calm down if you are going to participate here shouting and swearing are not productive. Thanks, RomaC (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh totally. I am all sorts of enraged and need to watch the cursing and caps lock. But seriously, this is such a mess that editors are not even looking at sources because they are deleted or they are so amped themselves that they refuse to google it. My only excuse is that I have been looking at these guys for months while the majority of people discussing haven't even bothered to look into it until now. I'm also all sorts of bent out of shape about other stuff right now so am trying to relegate myself to the talk page over making sweeping edits that are sure to be fantastic (since I am the best) but also controversial ;PCptnono (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed is defined as equipped with a weapon. Therefore we can't correctly refer to the passengers as armed activists as their apparent weapons: knives, axes, poles, were clearly implements that any sea vessel would carry. Furthermore, from all video shown few passengers had such implements or were using them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmap (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of the article

The title of the article should be Gaza Flotilla Attack rather than Clash, as a military clash requires two armed parties. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And both parties were armed.Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The armed status of the activists is contedsted, and even the reports claiming they had weapons say that those weapons were limited in nature and number. Fluidchameleon (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The current title, "Gaza flotilla clash", is not supported by RS, the great majority of which are heading and leading with "attack" or "intercept", or "storm(ing)", etc., i.e. an active verb ascribed to the Israeli side. Suggestions for a better title:

"Attack on Gaza flotilla"
"Storming of Freedom Flotilla"
"Israeli interception of Gaza aid ships"

Or maybe other editors have suggestions? RomaC (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All ships are armed in some ways, and captains are entitled to carry weapons as Policemen according to international laws. The armed status of activists is obvious as they were said to be armed with clubs and knives, and it is hard to imagine a resistance by these arms against Israeli forces. I strongly recommend the third suggestion of RomaC "Israeli interception of Gaza aid ships" 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is premature. It only happened a few hours ago, after all, and the issue of who attacked who is still very unclear. Let's leave the title alone until the situation becomes clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a bit confusing right now, but as it forms into a media narrative some title might take hold. Joshdboz (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it is still early, but see no sources whatsoever claiming that the Freedom flotilla members boarded Israeli Naval vessels or helicopters, all say it was the other way round, Israeli military commandos going onto the aid ships. So even a temporary title should reflect what we know to be true. RomaC (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "interception" is descriptive and fair, but incredibly awkward. I suggested "confrontation" on Wikinews. But mostly I'm glad that this made the front page here. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Even though it is a clash, it was largely an "interception" by nature. Mar4d (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In my mind number 2 is best. This is the most specific name. Lesswealth (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the title of the article should be changed very rapidly, as the news are hot now. In two days time, when accurate sources are reached, nobody will be reading this article. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps three questions need to be sorted out regarding the nature of the action and the correct title for it:

1. Does Israel (or any other nation) have the legal right to have members of its armed forces board ships in international waters against the wishes of the people on the ships?

2. Did the Free Gaza people invite the Israelis to come aboard their ships, or did the Israelis board the ships against the wishes of the people on the ships?

3. Did any one aboard any of the Free Gaza ships shoot at any of the Israeli ships or helicoptors before Israeli military personnel attempted to board the Free Gaza ships? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

How about "raid"? FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Raid looks very barbaric and it carries strong negative connotation against Israel. I suggest "Interception", as there is nothing wrong or POV with this word. Israel did "Intercept" the Gaza Flotilla. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Barbaric? It is routinely used for the "good guys", such as in "police raid". FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I didn't know it was used this way. My bad:( 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(left) May I suggest two titles: Gaza flotilla killings since it is definitely confirmed that people were killed by lethal force and the even more neutral Gaza flotilla incident. I have to agree that the word Clash hints to an affirmation of the POV that this was actually a battle. It is not clear yet what the case is, so that word should be avoided. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "killings" is biased in favour of the activists, and "incident" is biased in favour of the Israelis. Again, I think "raid" is best. It is widely used: http://www.google.dk/search?q=gaza+flotilla+raid&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:da:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=RqkDTPPmO9egOM-6tdYE FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is substantiated. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a vote or something? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On second thought raid is suggesting very subtly something unlawful on behalf of the flotilla crews while at the same time describes a security force that storms an inactive participant or at least prima facie that the force acted with a first strike (as in "police raids suspect's house"). We cannot confirm that just yet. Therefore raid is rather POVish on both ends. Your suggested title is substantiated only by the fact that it is commonly used to describe the incident by the press. But Wikipedia per its policy and with no other strings attached should try to do better if possible, isn't that so? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can start a requested move proposal if you got the stomach for it :) - I've seen where those can lead too sometimes ;) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, both sides could claim it is POV, that's what makes it neutral I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CNN uses raid, BBC uses storming, if they are not neutral I don't know what "neutral" means. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Raid" or"Attack" are the correct words and are used widely by moderate international press. Israel clearly initiated the action by boarding a ship without permission in international waters. "Confrontation" and "Interception" introduce words that complicate the information with implicit agendas. Clash is incorrect as both parties were clearly not armed for battle.

References

Look, repeated refs already although they do say farty which helps. Can editors name and reuse refs before it turns into a mess ?
^ http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7216380.ab
^ http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7216380.ab
^ http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2006940/gardell-ombord-pa-bordat-fartyg
^ http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2006940/gardell-ombord-pa-bordat-fartyg
Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities of victims

Sources urgently needed. --Leladax (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting that most of those aboard were Turkish citizens. No confirmation from any source that I've found of the nationalities of the casualties, but the odds are that many were Turks, assuming the Beeb is correct. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So I am not pulling up sources anymore but from what I saw a couple hours ago it was a very diverse group. There were people from all over. Most importantly, editors need to watch out for connecting the dots that were not there. 6 ships were stopped (maybe) 2 ships had not connected with the group so they may still be floating around out there with god who knows on them, and there were even more with mechanical problems. So basically, the pretrip manifest is a lot different than the ships stopped. The last umber I saw there were a couple Turks dead (reported in east Asian press) but that should not be considered in any ratio.Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities included Swedes, Americans, Greeks, Pakistani journalists, a lot of other europeans; this article has a good bit of information: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest.developments/index.html?hpt=T1 Fluidchameleon (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some flag icons to the notable people onboard section to reflect this diversity. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

map

Any map available so someone could create one public domain?--DAI (Δ) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We would need to know the coordinates of where the ships were at the time. Does anyone have this info? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Times, distances, and even departure points are disputed in sources so I recommend holding off.Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the course of the Eleftheri Mesogeios (confirmed to be in the flotilla) from this marine traffic tracking source:[3]. I think it is valuable information. You could now put your expertise in vector maps to use. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It shows the track but how do I get it to show the coords? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The track is composed of separate points. Select the vessel and after the track shows up, ~~click on~~ hover the mouse over the arrows on the track. It has time stamps and coordinates. I'm trying to figure out more myself. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out a list of tracking points here Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and well done for finding this. I have to go out to the gym now but I'll have a go at a map when I get back. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in quoting news sources

On such a highly charged topic, I would avoid citing anything from Israeli or Middle-Eastern/Turkish sources as "fact". We should qualify any claims (eg. number of israeli soldiers injured) as being "according to...". The opening paragraph currently states that "Israeli soldiers were injured" when there are no independent sources (ie. non-Israeli) for this. Likewise we shouldn't quote turkish/arab news reports claiming the soldiers "fired on unarmed civilians" as "fact" either. 203.173.37.146 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything from Free Gaza needs to be handled with care as well.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see nearly all the news resources are Al-Jazeera which can hardly be described as neutral. Also BBC & The Times have lower death figures &c... Any chance someone could edit & remove the non-neutral POV/news?? 86.63.26.124 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I've been told that Al-Jazeera (the English one at least) was one of the most neutral newsthings in the world (i.e. word of mouth OR). The fact that everyone seems to hate them seems to support this. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking a blockade versus breaking through a blockade

I'm not sure who keeps messing up the grammar in the lead, but a blockade is broken when it's been entirely thwarted and abandoned by it's maintainers. What these six ships were doing was attempting to break through the blockade. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video of boarding

"Video of the boarding shows that Israeli soldiers rappelling down onto the vessels were immediately beaten with clubs by the activists."

This is NOT true! See the video for yourselves: [4]. Lesswealth (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what I saw but unless the accompanying commentary from RS said it then it should go. I have a feeling that was a little OR from another editor so feel free to remove it if you have double checked the source.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw it myself, unless one is blind, it's clear Israeli soldires were attacked by mob while they were clearly infrior in numbers. They had no other option but to open fire.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree a bit. It is easy to miss dude towards the end of the BBC video being mobbed as he comes off the rope. It is right before the guy in the life jacket starts banging on the commando. It isn't a big deal though since the amount of coverage of these videos will be sufficient to verify what we see sooner or later. I still would recommend removal until they do so just to keep things on the up and up.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed. Lesswealth (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They opened fire before boarding. Here's another video: [5] LazySofa (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And the exact opposite is reciprocated with that interpretation.Cptnono (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont find these videos convincing beyound doubt either way, and believe interpreting them without better information is synthesis. We should be looking for sources rather than interpreting the videos ourselves. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video showing israeli soldiers being clubbed and attacked the moment they board the ship. this could be a club or a bouquet of flowers. i cant tell. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.68.5 (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

whoever is the dumbass propagandist who is removing the statement regarding the video of activists beating the boarding soldiers, don't edit if you aren't objective. here is proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJwERhCbStI

"Objective" here means telling people what other people say. This is a pretty big deal, so there are a lot of people reporting it. Find someone who reports that interpretation and post it. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As protagonists lacking sufficient objective distance, I think we should disregard the press from both Israel and Turkey in this section as is being done in other sections of this article. They are too closely involved to be able to be relied on as accurate sources.

POV problems

The lead ended with Al Jazira report goes something like, "according to the video, it seem that the people on board (pro Palestinian activists) were peacefull in nature". Clear commentary to this video [7]-it shouldn't be in the lead. Also, well sourced information on IDF spokersman response was removed without even leaving edit summary. --Gilisa (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone needs to calm down and nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article body per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried to remove it and it was put back. We should keep the lead simple for now in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran and Pakistan are not Arab countries

This is incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed since the responses of Iran and Pakistan have been moved to a separate section. Is this still a problem? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

POV & JIDF

This article has been targeted by the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force) which is trying to "win the PR war" online over this incident. [8] I suggest all edits be carefully vetted and examined before being committed.

Also the Israeli reaction has no business being the lead as they are party to this conflict. The United Nations should be the lead. Also, many more reactions can be found here and should be added to the article even if they are no palatable to the biased editors. [9] Truthiness54 (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, d*rn! I think they're trying to beat an invincible opponent this time! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm in agreement with the view that Israeli PR is strangely prominent in this article. Let's be careful here. Lesswealth (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have specific evidence that JIDF are targeting this article i.e. can you provide links to specific statements somewhere ? The link you provided is just a general statement. If it is the case that there are JIDF users I will try to follow it up when I have time. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland, the JIDF maintains a list of what they call the "List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors" [10] and they've refocused their efforts to wiping out the "anti-Israeli" bias on Wikipedia [11].

The edits on the pages that are heavily biased are very concerning. While I appreciate people feeling a sense of national pride, making up sources or heavily supporting the Israel military's perspective in this article is a violation of our neutrality policy. Like I said above, every line in this article should be vetted because there is far too much bias from the editors using Israeli sources.

Finally, all editors need to be aware that being completely neutral on this article may result in harassment by being placed on the above lists. I've always edited with just my IP but the potential for bullying made me want to create an account. Truthiness54 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So if I beat off blatant POV by them can I get this yoke of being only here for Israelis off? I'm a Slayer fan FFS.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All POV pushers should be mercilessly crushed. Go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic IP and profile checks demonstrate it.--67.175.193.236 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic IP and profile checks demonstrate what ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is for summarizing the article, so put both reactions.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool... thanks. Truthiness54 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

JIDF about this article: http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! As you can see, this article is now being targeted. I suggest we lock down the article because things are getting out of hand. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, lock it. this is absurd. the amount of "edit conflicts" and vandalismLihaas (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - lock is the best alternative. Again, I'm astonished at the amount of politics that has surrounded this article in such a short space of time. I think we need a couple of admins to monitor this article too, just in case. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Legality

Section needed. --Leladax (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD make one, with sources of course.Lihaas (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

article name

in my opinion undue blame is put on the israelis with this title, its a gross eaxageration. i suggest: unarmed arabs attack israeli helicopters in international waters.80.57.43.99 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Israeli saing they were: Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, "we have the right to defend ourselves." "This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves." "This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory"

Other Israeli men saying "armada of hate"^[1] but is not clear if he hate this armada or who hate who . Aid is symbol of love, but aid to those who one hate ? Ai 00 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article's name is misleading. A flotilla, according to the current wikipedia definition [12], is "a formation of small warships that may be part of a larger fleet. A flotilla is usually composed of a homogeneous group of the same class of warship, such as frigates, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, gunboats, or minesweepers." These vessels were not warships in any sense whatsoever. MdArtLover (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

US response

needed. --Leladax (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an American response yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.147.206 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. I don't know if "a white house spokesman" entails an official US response or just means they're about to issue a response. Well, they responded either way so it's there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.147.206 (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

please remove the description of hedy epstein as a holocaust survivor

she didnt spend one day in a concentration camp. she spent the entire war in england

my god, she has her own wiki article which attests to this fact.

Recommend removing all names and descriptions not described in proper secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She is an Holocaust survivor. She was rescued from Germany by the Kindertransport just before the war, but all her family was killed, so she survived the Holocaust, and not by chance. But her life was forever changed. Also, it is shorter than "Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany" which seems the definition the wiki is giving her now.

Anyway, regardless of my opinion, she is called a Holocaust survivor in most of the news covering the subject (The New York Times online, for example)

The point being the source says it, until a counter source (or more than 1 NPOV) it stands.Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all immaterial as she was not even on the boats, but in Cyprus. See sources below. Ericoides (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Media blackout

Things seem to get removed from this page in a rapid fashion, but I am strongly suggesting that we should keep the mention of the communications blackout in the introduction, as this is important for Wikipedia users to know while reading this article. Lesswealth (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agrreed, be WP:Bold add it.Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was removed by Jalapenos do exist. WHY? Lesswealth (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What blackout? Sources were buzzing like crazy from all over the globe within the hour. Do you mean the movement saying their communications weren't working? Can you find an independent RS? If not make sure to do some attribution. It is a little funny that Wikipedia was updated before their page was!Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Israeli is jamming broadcasts but forgot/overlooked mobile phone signals, which is how the footage got out. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, also blackout at killing zone. Why the no one turned on the patrol ships lights. There is quite dark on the video. The lights can light up football field Ai 00 (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw lights in a video. How about you keep your arguments to what is clearly stated in the sources not seen.Cptnono (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ABC's journalist is also reporting the Israeli military is jamming communications. Feel free to add it to the article. Source: [13] Truthiness54 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed AGAIN. What is this, a concentrated PR effort by some folks? Lesswealth (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it again, as I am strongly of the opinion that this should be in the introduction. Now I'm outta here. I'm asking others to reinsert it if it gets removed again. Take care. Lesswealth (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about the lead, leave tht for when the article calms down. But if sourced it should be in there.Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dark

Why the patrol Israeli ships didn't turn lights ? Or did they but it was not recorded on video ? (a kind of dark light infrared?) This should go to the article. Ai 00 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Recorded video shows the lights. Wikipedia is not scandal mongering.Cptnono (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ships involved

Me and Lihaas have introduced a new section: Ships involved. Please help by expanding it. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 12:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag is on, in a day or 2 it should be.(Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IDF statement: no guns on board

The IDF website is stating: "According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was attempting to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. The violent activists took these pistols from IDF forces and apparently opened fire on the soldiers as evident by the empty pistol magazines." Source: [14]

This confirms there were no guns on board the boat. Again, this article is being used as part of a PR campaign by the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF). Source: [15]. I suggest locking down the article. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how your claim of 'no guns on board' follows from your quotation of the IDF website. They say the activists took the pistols from IDF forces, not that there's no weapons in the ship's cargo room. And if you think there's incorrect content in the article (added by some JIDF or whoever else), feel free to challenge it. However, try not to make obviously unsupported claims. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Haartz Reference

The fourth reference http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-tows-gaza-aid-ships-to-ashdod-after-10-activists-killed-in-clashes-with-navy-1.293089 does not claim that two Isreali soldiers are seriously injured. It only mentions of six soldiers being wounded. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But we did have a source that said one was stabbed in the stomach. We had another discussing that one was in critical condition. Was this removed recently? Did you look?Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are not cited there. I will erase the part involving seriour injury. Anyone with a citation my re-add that info with citation. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many edits like this throughout the article. You should clean up whatever you can and this article needs to be locked down. Wikipedia has no place in being used as a PR weapon by Israelis or any other party. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz is "PR" now? Their staff are generally anti-Israeli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

People on board?

Verification needed for people on board, fairly sure Chuckle Brothers is just vandalisation (have added 'citation needed'). Please could people check any new entries for affirmation? - Norminator (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it's a stupid hoax, and the cited source doesn't exist. Removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They have previous here (see [16]). Obviously some people (eg User:QuoDad) continue to consider it amusing. Ericoides (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to lock down the article

It's time we lock down this article for the unsourced edits, propaganda, and vandalism. I'm not sure how we begin this process but here's my vote. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Asked hours ago. Feel free to weigh in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to the admins. This is ridiculous, cant even type anything w/o a conflicting edit(Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the JIDF nutcases are directing people here now: http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html -- ChrisO (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Support lockdown. "From the most biased, anti-Israel media sources (such as Al Jazeera and Ha'aretz)." Wow, these guys are hard. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is not sourced?Faaaaaaamn (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many things are sourced but if you check the source then you'll find nothing of the sort was stated on that article. I've cleaned up several of those edits but I can't win this battle. How do I contact an admin? Truthiness54 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also supporting lockdown. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I've commented at ANI that I hoped to avoid it, and my support now is purely down to the huge number of edit conflicts I got when I tried to edit it. Bringing discussion to the talk page and avoiding partisan editing (from pro-X and anti-X sides...) will, however, be an entirely welcome side effect! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been done. Thanks Wehwalt. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I don't think I'm allowed the edit the article now but a lot of you are doing good work so I'm okay with it. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Condemnation

I'm a little confused why this edit was made to the introduction: [17]

The original line is supported by the 5th paragraph of the Los Angeles Times source (link [18]):

"The Israeli raid was condemned by Arab states, the United Nations, and the European Union. European states called their respective Israeli ambassadors for meetings and, together with the United Nations and European Union, called for an investigation"

While this edit by Lihaas isn't completely on the spot:

"The Israeli raid was widely criticized, while European states (particularly those who had citizens on board) called for an investigation."

European nations and the United Nations strongly condemned the action AND called for an investigation. I really believe this edit is not true to the quoted source. Thoughts? Truthiness54 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I replaced this with a more closely worded statement sourced to this AP article. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish Oireachtas members not aboard

I removed Aengus O Snodaigh from the notable persons aboard list as, along with FF TD Chris Andrews and FF Senator Mark Daly, he was prevented from boarding in Cyprus by the government there, see Monday May 31 Irish Independent piece [Helicopters halt Oireachtas trio in Gaza aid trip] Helvetius (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Khubaib Foundation member killed

ANY REGISTERED MEMBER... KINDLY ADD THE NAME OF "NADEEM AHMED" WHO IS A PAKISTANI AND A MEMBER OF KHUBAIB FOUNDATION IN THE NOTABLE PEOPLE ONBOARD IN THE GAZA FLOTILLA LIST. THERE WERE TOTAL THREE MEN FROM PAKISTAN. KINDLY ADD THE NAME OF NADEEM AHMED ASAP. THANKS

We'd need a reference from a reliable source (e.g. a Pakistani newspaper, or - better still - a Pakistani newspaper's website. Also: why is this individual notable (I'm not saying he isn't, just wanting to know how we'd describe him to readers).

Also: please don't SHOUT ;-)

TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

definition

Did it was ever mention that the convoy attacked the idf or even breached any law. The ships were in international waters, there was no clash that was one hell of an attack with heavy fire against unarmed civilians. I'm going to remove the "between" description until someone get evidence the ships were attacking the naval army (by the way, defending yourself on your ship does NOT count as attacking) --Mido (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a WP:RS saying this go ahead

The soldiers were ambushed

"Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons" [[19]] Could someone add this to the article? Shrike (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess paintballs made an impression on activists as at least ten of them are dead now. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been reliably reported (e.g. [20]) that the commandos were armed with assault rifles. Paintball guns, obviously, do not fire bullets. And as a matter of basic military tactics there's no way that any competent commander would send troops into a potential hostile area without firearms. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The commandos were indeed equipped with paintball guns, of course they also had a pistol which was only meant to be used as a last resort. check your facts before you post anything.

I guess it's quite awesome when you can seriously injure soldiers with rifles when you are unarmed yourself, too. So perhaps both accounts are somewhat untrustworthy. There are many contradictionary reports from both sides and if there's sources stating this then it should be included. I suppose deciding whether sources are correct or believable, is also some form of original research? But then again, isn't the very word 'reliable' (as in reliable sources) kind of POV-sensitive? If it's reported, it can be included in the Wikipedia article that it's being reported. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I gather (and I'm as ill-informed as any of us!) - that one party alleges that members of the other party took weapons from it. We don't - or shouldn't - discriminate between reliable sources. If two reliable sources say different things, we note that opinions differ. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

While, yes, it's possible to hurt people armed with guns if they don't plan on using them, that YNet article is so uuuuugh. It's not a news report so much as it is a dramatic retelling of the heroism of military forces who boarded a bunch of shoddily-armed civilians. They seem to be pandering to nationalists. It's not a reliable source at all. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: Yes, the IDF does allege that they took guns from soldiers. But there are other sources for that. I feel like using that as a source lends it some sort of legitimacy as a news source that it doesn't deserve. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why have my edits been reverted twice?

If it is not permissible to post a video from the IDF Spokesman's office showing that the IDF did warn off the flotilla in accordance with the San Remo Manual on Maritime Law; and if it is likewise not permissible to post a link to that document and a short quote from it in support, then what the hell is permissible?

Is it the case that only anti-Israel edits can be made? Is it impermissible to provide the raw data from which an actually open-minded person might draw conclusions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonAaron (talk • contribs) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's original research by synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please don't add your personal analysis to articles. Wait for a reliable source to cover the issue first. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what it is. I posted that the San Remo Manual stipulates that it is permissible to attack vessels running a blockade. That is a fact (and I might add that it is common maritime law). I posted a link to the relevant source. I then posted the video statement from the IDF Spokesman's office showing that they did follow that protocol. Now, that may be a "biased source", but since there was nobody else on board the IDF vessel at that time, just how long do you propose one "wait for a reliable source"?

WP is in effect censoring information pertinent to the matter at hand, I can only surmise what the reason for that censoring might be. RonAaron (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the first revert, I posted a message on your talk page stating that YouTube is not a WP:RS. Re that revert, this page is not the appropriate forum for discussing which sources should or should not be an RS. Ericoides (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and after I saw your comment, I re-edited my initial edit, substituting the original IDF Spokesman's page for the YouTube link. That's an official gov't site, not some guy in a basement. RonAaron (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the second revert as I did not make it. But I rather think that with your comment "that [the IDF page] may be a "biased source"" you have answered your own question. ChrisO's point re WP:SYN is pertinent here. Ericoides (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some newspaper should write that down before it can be used in Wikipedia. When that's done, we can cite it. Right now there is only videos and legislation and the interpretation of such sources is not up to us. Andreas Willow (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but remember that these days newspapers and other news outlets are pretty quick to publish to their websites - and a newspaper's website is very reliable as sources go (and far easier for us to cite and for readers to verify. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, by "write down" I meant that a newspaper's website should report on it. I just meant to say that someone blogging about it is not enough, it must be a newspaper, preferably a fairly large one (since smaller newspapers in particular might not be very NPOV). Andreas Willow (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing something critical here. How can it be better to post a secondary source such as a newspaper article which cites a primary source, as opposed to simply posting the primary source and allowing the presumably intelligent users of WP to draw their own conclusions? I must also protest citation of the embedded Al-Jazeera correspondent as being eminently biased, though I expect my protest will fall on deaf ears. RonAaron (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera are an RS in Wikipedia just like Jpost. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for an explanation of the preference for secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[To RonAaron] Yes, you are. A primary source requires your interpretation. A secondary source provides the interpretation. We are an encyclopedia, ie a tertiary source. That is why, for example, in an article on Plutarch we have the (initially counter-intuitive) position of preferring to cite people writing about Plutarch to citing Plutarch ourselves. I really do suggest you read WP:OR and WP:SYN to clarify these key policies for yourself; this page will get cluttered up if we discuss them here. Ericoides (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the difference between posting a video "showing" (i.e. subject to interpretation) they did something, and posting a video from the IDF claiming they did something. The more controversial the topic, the greater the importance of OR, NPOV, and RS. In this case it's not good enough that it looks like, from one point of view, something happened. Do you have someone involved claiming that it happened, citing the video as proof, or someone reporting that it happened, citing the video as proof? Think of it this way: Wikipedia can't say something such that it can be held responsible if it turns out that your subjective interpretation was, somehow, no matter how unlikely, wrong. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Clash?????????

This is a new low for wikipedia. Calling it clash sickens me even more than the actual massacre that took place which some retards are even unwilling to call it an attack. REMcrazy (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider using title of the article section above, I also made the same claim. Most people believe it should be interception or raid. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider the notice at the top of the page asking you to stay cool when the editing is hot. Not using the word 'retards' for fellow editors would be quite an improvement already. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the article to interception, might not be the very best name, but certainly better than the previous one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter campaign spam

Someone keeps trying to add a link to a Twitter campaign to boycott Israeli products. This should definitely not be in the article - Twitter is not a reliable source and the campaign is not notable without any reliable sourcing of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Any kind of campaign is irrelevant to this article. It's purely soap-boxing. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

notable people on board

Haneen Zoubi and Waleed Al-Tabtabaie and Abbas Nasser – Al Jazeera Arabic news journalist are still uncited claims as being on board, is there any support for these claims? Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

For Abbas Nasser, yes, just added the ref. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done

false news

according aljazerehAt least 19 People were Killed and 'Injured but sentence in article indicated that :Up to 19 pro-Palestinian activists aboard the ships were killed .Article is under protection and I can't edit sentence , Infobox and section Casualties.Koper sing (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get your point. What do you want changed? I think both Al Jazeera and the article claim 19 people killed and dozens injured. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote from source, "At least 19 people were killed and dozens injured" - sentence can stay as it is, I think. Ale_Jrb ^talk 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Live TV news is currently reporting 19 dead and 60 injured, which seems to be the latest casualty figures. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name

The name has just been changed to Gaza flotilla interception but I don't see any consensus or discussion, it this an agreed move? Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no discussion either way. Ale_Jrb ^talk 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are just about half the google search results for the new title, the old title Gaza flotilla clash appears much more common to me and actually more representative of the details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to allow discussion of the article name, without prejudice. I have no particular preference myself. However, consensus should be sought for any change of name. I suggest that the person who moved it should make a case here and seek consensus from other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page was move protected by another admin; consensus is needed for any move. Ale_Jrb ^talk 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article's name needs to be changed because it is misleading, and in a way that appears blatantly partisan. A flotilla, according to the current wikipedia definition [21], is "a formation of small warships that may be part of a larger fleet. A flotilla is usually composed of a homogeneous group of the same class of warship, such as frigates, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, gunboats, or minesweepers." These vessels were not warships in any sense whatsoever. MdArtLover (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page moved illegally

User:FunkMonk [22] has moved this from Gaza flotilla clash to Gaza flotilla interception without consensus and just said "about time this was moved". Why? This makes it even worse. People died here, remember? Calling it a massacre obviously isn't going to please some people but an "interception" is just plain ignorant to the other side of what went on here. Please move it back. --86.45.76.26 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can this be locked against further moves by rebel editors please? It is very difficult to edit this talk page. --86.45.76.26 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Illegally"?! I think you mean WP:BOLDly. You know, you could always ask them why they moved it!

That said, my personal preference is for "...clash", because it seems pretty neutral. But please, assume good faith, and avoid nonsense claims like "page moved illegally" (and "rebel editors") unless you seriously intend to report an editor to the police.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"boldly"? Sorry, not buying it. It was an aggressively non-neutral page move, entirely without the best interests of the project in mind. And you're defending the "editor" who did it. --78.34.237.146 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving a page on Wikipedia isn't "illegal".--Nosfartu (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm asking the IP - and everyone here - to display some good faith. I disagreed with the move, in case that wasn't clear to you. WP:BOLD is one of our key policies. I'm certainly not going to condemn an editor for being WP:BOLD, even if I disagree with their edit - as I do here. So in that respect: yes, I am defending them. Why aren't you? ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah "Clash" seems to be in the middle of "interception" and "massacre".

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Illegal made me laugh a little hard. The page should be moved through the common procedure, and will probably meet article naming guidelines. A move would take a few days (after sources have settled on a name and a discussion has taken place), but ultimately might not be illegal.--Nosfartu (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand people who don't comment when we suggest better names "raid" or "interception". If you think clash is just the right word, please say so when we are discussing it. If you really care about giving neutral point of view, then please read the talk pages and have an idea of what other people's "neutral" point of view is. Thanks 144.122.113.139 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What illegal? I still think the page should be moved, and there is a discussion about it, please be part of it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your good faith (and completely "legal") move to "Gaza flotilla interception". Editors are allowed to be WP:BOLD; you were - you did nothing wrong. The great thing about being WP:BOLD is that the rest of us can revert you easily. And then we can all sit down and discuss the matter. No harm, no foul. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with "interception". It's not like it gives a false impression, and reading the lede (or the... blurb or whatever on the main page) you'll get a better idea of what happened. "Clash" sounds like there was a military skirmish. "Raid" implies fault on the part of one party or the other, depending on who reads it. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Intercept does not convey what occurred at all, up to 19 civilians dead bringing aid on a boat. Clash is perhaps not perfect but it is better than interception. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As 144 said, we've been discussing this for a long time, and the editors who prefer the current name, but haven't bothered to be part of the discussion, should comment on there instead of just complaining. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No one else is complaining at the moment. You moved it. It was moved back. You need a consensus to move it again, and you haven't got one. Personally, I prefer this name, but that's not really the point. What's the problem? Ale_Jrb ^talk 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem was solved when the new move request below was made, and people who opposed the move entered the discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading write-up about Iranian reaction

(reposting this guy's comment as it got lost in redirects of talk pagesSean.hoyland - talk 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

I am unregistered so someone else will need to look at this.

I see it says this in the article as Iran's reaction: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said that the incident was an "inhuman action of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people" and that it would bring Israel "closer than ever to its end."[70]

This is misleading and is one of the things that infuriates me about Wikipedia. The link (number 70) leads to the BBC website where Ahmedinejad's quote is as follows: "The inhuman action of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people and preventing the humanitarian aid from reaching Gazans does not show this regime's strength, but is a sign of its weakness, and all this brings this sinister and fake regime closer than ever to its end."

The Wiki comment makes it appear to the reader that Ahmedinejad is talking about bringing Israel closer than ever to it's end when in fact he is talking about the ZIONIST REGIME coming to an end, not Israel.

This kind of silly misquoting needs to come to an end, he was also misquoted with the "wipe Israel off of the face of the earth" comment.

It should read something like this:

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said that the incident was an "inhuman action of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people" and that it would bring this sinister and fake regime "closer than ever to its end."[70] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.108.181 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel is the Zionist regime. Zionism lead to Israel. Israel was created and Zionism ceased to exist. He wants it replaced with an Islamic regime.

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let the sources speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur that, regardless of an individual's interpretation of the relationship between Zionism and Israel, the quote doesn't explicitly refer to Israel and might be seen as altering the meaning of his words. Duly clarified. Ale_Jrb ^talk 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ok there must be a seperate Zionist regime I've never heard of. If the "Zionist regime" ceases to exist, Israel ceases to exist. You're nitpicking.

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally beside the point. Someone who didn't know anything about Israel and "the Zionist regime" (and I don't really know much tbh) could be confused. If the regime is Israel, then the article is still accurate, because that's what it's quoting. If they could be perceived as different, it's still accurate. Win win situation, I think. Ale_Jrb ^talk 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should transpose "Zionist regime" in a source to "Israel". They aren't the same thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sean.hoyland for posting this, I just registered as I thought that that was the reason my post didn't appear. It reads much more accurately than it did before. Unfortunately Ahmedinejad seems to get misquoted more than most. wibble2005

Article moves and redirects

I've requested full protection of Talk:Gaza flotilla interception (i.e. not this talk page!) as comments are still getting posted there.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if someone would like to sanity-check my move-then-revert of section(s) from Talk:Gaza flotilla interception to here - that would be great. I moved, then reverted because it looked like the moved sections were here already. Now I'm not so sure, and my brane hurts... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10196628.stm

[1] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10196628.stm

[1]