Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

The see also section, again

There is 'attack on humanitarian workers" linked in the above mentioned section. Thus, the article linked to other wiki article which deal with attacks on UN and wordly recognized non govermental aid organisations. I want to remind that there is no such agreement about the passengers on the flotilla. It's argued that many of those were not humanitrian activists by any measure. More, the fact the ship was boarded doesn't say it was attacked, certainly not on purpose. --Gilisa (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gilisa. I think the preponderance of reliable sources do classify the Free Gaza Movement as an NGO and the IHH as an aid organization. That "armada of terrorists" thing is a fringe point of view. And "the commandos didn't do it on purpose" seems kinda weak reasoning. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, it's not "fringe point of view" and you absolutly have no reason to call it "fringe". It's a view helded not only by the Israelis and back uped with broad range RS. Most RS didn't refute or expressing now heavy doubts about the Israeli version according which they were prepered for violance. This also includes one video realesed three days ago and published and RS, where muslim activists are seen shouting the "Takbir" and guided to "throw the Israeli commandos to the sea" when those are to board the ship. --Gilisa (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This video [1] was released by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was reported world wide. The title of the video is "Evidence: IHH Leader Urges Men to Throw Israelis Overboard 30May2010". Therefore (taken with a lot of world wide previous reports in most certainly RS on IDF soldiers been attacked with clubs and knifes as soon as they stepped the boat), the nature of the passengers were injured and killed on board is at least disputed. Hence, including "attack on humanitarian workers" in the see also section is POV. I don't suggest to include "attack on terror activists" on the other hand. As I said, there is dispute and wikipedia shouldn't take a side when there is one, therefore, there is no place for "attack on humanitarian workers" in the see also section, per WP:NPOV and WP:CON. --Gilisa (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I remove it from the see also section.--Gilisa (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilisa, I can't see where you think you got consensus for that. RomaC (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted it back, since there is still no consensus. --Kslotte (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilsa, See also doesn't need to rely on references, like the article should do. This means your YouTube video arguments has no weight at all (it would have if it was an inline statement). The relation is clear: The flotilla delivered humanitarian aid and they were attacked. The reader may be intrested in reading other humanitarian aid attacks. --Kslotte (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Kslotte, the fact "see also" doesn't have to rely on refernces doesn't mean you can include anything you like into it. Consensus is needed more to include dispute edit and less to exclude it. Also, there are many references, within the article already, point that those activists were ready to violance, at least allegedly. Hence, the inclusion of the "attack on humanitarian aid workers" in the See also section is POV. --Gilisa (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilisa a problem is if you are suggesting that there were no humanitarian aid workers on the Gaza freedom flotilla, you are arguing a fringe position. RomaC (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
But there is a question that it might have been simply PR which was raised well before they set sail. Then the question came up that there were militants. Explain it (which is allowed in the See also MoS) or integrate the link into the text were it is already explained (or at least should be) so that it does not read like a contentious label. All of this bickering over the See also section is ridiculous since it isn't that challenging to do it in the body which would limit the need of it being unexplained in the See also section altogether. Of course there was humanitarian aid and workers. How hard is it to say it in the body and use a piped wikilink?Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, as I said, your use of the term "fringe" is out of place here. The question is if there were here attack on humanitrian aid workers per se, the answer is not. Even if 100% of the passengers on the Mavy Marmara were humanitrian aid workers, there is no justification for having this wikilink in the see also section simply because arguing the Israeli navy operation consisted an attack on humanitarian aid workers the same way the linked article refer to (terror attacks on humanitarian workers and so forth) is at least as fringe as my argument you refered to as fringe. What IDF did (boarding a boat, intending to break a blockade, outside Israel's teritorial waters) is considered completly legal by at least some high profile experts. The boat was boarded, there were clashings on it between passengeres and IDF soldiers, calling it attack on humanitarian aid workers is completly interpertive in regard to the events and should not be included here per WP:NPOV.--Gilisa (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We shall not lose perspective here. Whether some activists confronted the Israeli soldiers or whether some of them shouted in the name of Allah or has nothing to do with their designation as aid workers. Aid worker doesn't necessarily have to mean "pacifist". They were civilians and taking aid to Gaza, and these facts alone are enough for them to be called aid workers. An overwhelming majority of RS also referred to the campaign as an aid flotilla. They were aid workers, and they were attacked. Numerous passenger testimonies and the released videos confirm that the commandos opened fire before boarding the ships. Even if that was not the case; boarding and raiding a passenger foreign ship with armed commandos is called an attack whichever way you look at it. --386-DX (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's not forget that some of the attacked persons was ship's staff and reporters so not all were aid workers. // Liftarn (talk)
Liftarn, your comment is not appropriate per WP:TPNO. 386-DX, what perspective are you talking about? You are clearly giving here your POV ("they were attacked" "whether some of them shouted in the name of Allah or has nothing to do with their designation as aid workers. Aid worker doesn't necessarily have to mean "pacifist"). Let's end it here, it's very disputed link, no consensus on it, and it should not be included here. --Gilisa (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not giving my perspective, I'm merely disputing other users' POV arguments to support its exclusion. There is a good agreement on its inclusion since the day of the raid, and just some people do not think it's not relative enough is no reason to exclude it. As I said, this is being discussed since the day of the raid, and I'll refer it for mediation. --386-DX (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
These are circular arguments. I will not write it once again: Those who argue to exclude undeniable argument is that the whole issue is very interperative, and you can't truely deny it. I can't find any reason to refer to your claim according which these are POV arguments. And there is no good agreement here-stop repeatedly saying you have consensus when you clearly don't. --Gilisa (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kslotte, the "reader may be intrested in reading other humanitarian aid attacks", but it seems that only directly related pages are added at See also. That's why Kurdish villages destroyed during the Iraqi Arabization campaign was removed from Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, per the discussion at See also (II). Chesdovi (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is the point. If we want to highlight it for the reader since they should no about it then it needs to go. That is especially true in the recent culling of the section. Put it in the prose or make sure to add a description acknowledging that it is disputed. It is clear from this conversation tht it is disputed. Cptnono (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Cptnono here. Inclusion in the see also is clearly disputed. The bottom line is that the see also section needs to either include all the tangentially related links, or none of them. Until there is consensus that the information should be included, it should be removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It's unclear to me whether or not the raid is described as an attack (by reliable sources). I would remove it until discussion can come to some sort of consensus for its inclusion. ← George talk 23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Individual opinions are not important in this case. You can argue about the nature of the attack; i.e. whether it was a massacre/seizure/raid etc. but you cannot dispute the fact that an attack took place. Here is the confirmation that the event is being widely referred to as an "attack" by reliable sources: [2] --386-DX (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
386-DX, Actually, it was originally agreed upon that this was a "clash" not an "attack"; an attack implies that this was one directional violence. But the even more important question is if the people on board were "aid workers" or "activists". I believe that we have agreed that the ships were full of "activists" not "aid workers". So, any implications that "Israel attacked aid workers" seems very POV, as compared to the NPOV version of a "clash between IDF and activists". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is tagged and I agree. It is getting a little long, certain links do not comply with ELNO, and it looks like point making and bickering has made its way into the main space.

  • Gaza flotilla raid on Discourse DB (archive of notable opinion items) Who is to say that this is "notable".
All of those stories should be used as citations. WP:ELYES calls for "neutral" links. Since this is not from one of the belligerents (which would be reasonable), it should go.
These opinions would only be notable if reliable sources report on them (which may be the case for some of them). Merely copying the texts is not equivalent to reporting, so in case "Discourse DB" is a reliable source as far as the authenticity of the texts is concerned (the website apparently make few factual statements for which it claims accuracy), we cannot infer that these opinions are generally notable. If the link is kept, I suggest replacing "notable opinions" with "published opinions".  Cs32en Talk to me  15:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest moving this link to the List of passengers article.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems O.K.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need three links to the Guardian? How about using it them as citations. I could understand having one of ongoing coverage. The "live coverage" is interested but there was obviously confusion so accuracy is in question.
May be interesting with regard to how and when the various pieces of information about the event have become known. There are probably some reliable sources that could be used to establish that this is an significant aspect of the topic (which includes the event itself, as well as reactions, aftermath etc.). So I would tend to keep it in the article, but the sources would need to be actually found if this is being challenged.
  • Flotilla Facts, a website with a summary of the raid and background on the blockade of Gaza, aid to Gaza, and related legal issues (Israeli view)
Again, question of neutrality from an uninvolved source. I suspect some might even bring up accuracy
Nobody seems to vouch publicly for the accuracy of this website, the About section contains very little information. We cannot state that this is the Israeli viewpoint, because we have no information that this would actually be the case. We should not attribute positions taken by that website to Israel, the Israeli government etc. I suggest to remove this link.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need this?
It would be best if this website had a specific Gaza section. If the link becomes outdated, we may replace it with a link to a relevant statement from the IDF. Maybe there is a Gaza section on some other Israeli government site. Apart from the technical question, I think that including this website is O.K.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Are these needed? These are not a big concern to me but thought I would ask.
If there are more important links, the link could be removed. But as of this moment, I would rather keep it.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, question of neutrality from an uninvolved source. I suspect some might even bring up accuracy
It's somewhat awkward to single out "Democracy Now". Better to look for commentary and opinions that have been reported on by independent secondary sources. (There may be reports about the "Democracy Now" statement, of course.)  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Better at the specific article?
Yes, move to "Legal assessments".  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Deligitimize, huh? Open wiki and neutrality. WP:ELNO #12
All of those stories should be used as citations. WP:ELYES calls for "neutral" links. Since this is not from one of the belligerents (which would be reasonable), it should go.
This links to the front page of that website and not the specific story. Even if it did not, it is not a unique resource and the tone is questioned.
Blog. WP:ELNO #11. Journalists are fine and all but their "independence" means it is not vetted through an editor ensuring their neutrality.

Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I admittedly haven't looked through all of these, but these external links sections always fill up with useless crap quickly. I'd suggest taking a hacksaw to the ones you feel don't meet WP policy standards. ← George talk 05:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Ack! Mindless, multiplying, meta-relational links ... kill them with fire!!! Zuchinni one (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the ei article with the original not the weblog reproduction, so should be fine. Suggest Guardian be cut down to the Q&A and both the UN links go as already mentioned in the article? Misarxist (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: "English website of the IDF". I'd say that the IDF and the IHH are two external links that we probably do need, those two organisations being the key protagonists in the raid. I'd also support the Free Gaza website's inclusion.
I'm unconvinced by any of the Guardian links, apart from - maybe - the list of passengers.
I'd suggest that the "responses" sections should be cut down to one section, or removed entirely (don't we have an article devoted to this topic?) As it is, it seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to the Israeli and activist positions, at the expense of the international reaction (which appears to solely come from the UN and Democracy Now). TFOWR 10:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that EI is needed but that can be discussed. Killed the rest.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Your indentation makes it look like I might be suggesting that Electronic Intifada is a good EL ;-) I'd like to see the "responses" sections dramatically trimmed, to focus on the responses that matter without giving undue weight. I don't see a future for Electronic Intifada in that... unless there's some compelling reason which no one yet has given? TFOWR 12:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a 'response' to the raid, it's a critique of the IDF version, as such it's highly relevant. Misarxist (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
So would killtheterroists.net or diearabdie.com be ok then, Misarxist? (not real websites) We can't just put in rebuttals to put in rebuttals. Is Electronic Intifada a reliable source? If so it belongs as an inline citation. If its lack of neutrality disrupts its ability to present information accurately then it isn't good enough as a source let alone an EL.Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
And I removed the English website of the IDF since the subject is this raid and not the IDF. If the IDF has an English version devoted to their side of the story then it should be in. Just a general link seemed like just another on top of their other links. I do think IDF and Free Gaza (and related groups) deserve an EL if the page in question is directly related.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does The Electronic Intifada qualify as a recognized authority for blogs, per point 11? Chesdovi (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Sorry, I assumed the IDF, IHH and Free Gaza links were all to pages about the raid itself. Agree that the IDF website home page is an appropriate link at the IDF article; agree too that it is not an appropriate EL here.
Picking up on the "responses to the responses": I feel that the responses from the international community and the Free Gaza movement would counter-act the response from the IDF, rendering ELs from Electronic Intifada etc redundant. There's an argument for "official links" (IDF, IHH, Free Gaza) which exhibit some bias, but other links should be non-partisan. TFOWR 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ctpnono here. Not sure that such clearly POV sites add to the encyclopedic content. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:ELNO and that piece doesn't seem to breach any of that (the 'blog' claim is a distraction, EI does have an editorial policy). The piece is a reasoned analysis of an aspect of the story that's woefully under-represented in the article. Note the 'non-neutral' claims (actually IDONTLIKEIT) would also rule out an IDF link. Misarxist (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going on WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, and OKing the IDF, IHH and Free Gaza links based on the WP:ELYES 1 category. We expect these "official" sites to be non-neutral. I fail to see how WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here: any argument for the IDF is an argument for the IHH and Free Gaza. TFOWR 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess consensus is heading against. My point about DONTLIKE was that there's no discussion of the actual merits of the linked piece itself, but whatever. Could we also now ditch the stating the obvious subsections in the EL? They don't seem to serve much purpose now that there's so few links? Misarxist (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In my view, the subsections are still quite helpful. We can't exclude the possibility that more (appropriate) links will be added in the future, and the subsections provide a structure for such additions, as well as useful information for the reader.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left some comments under the respective descriptions of the links. The last three links may be deleted, in my view, unless reliable sources would have reported on them.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are most comprehensive and factual data/eyewitness testimony collection sites of the activists. Sites deticated to the event. First hand eyewitness testimonies in text and videos. Strongly object removal. Readded. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly each time people list dozens of trivial links to remove, yet remove 2 of the most important links [they don't like] along with trivial ones. Kasaalan (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't really care if these links stay or go, but I'm not sure it's right to call them factual. They both link to articles that tell a very POV account of the events. I don't think the POV accounts are necessarily a bad thing as long as they aren't included in the article text and I'm certainly not an authority on the truthiness of statement from either these links or the IDF. Perhaps the best way to deal with these links and the links from the IDF would be to put in a statement that indicates the POV nature of those links.
On the other hand I have no clue why the Guardian article is still there. It doesn't seem to make any sense as an external link. Anyone have a problem with me removing it? Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Treated alongside" is not supported by sources

Re this sentence in the lead:

The wounded activists were evacuated by Israeli air force helicopters to hospitals in Israel, where they were treated alongside the wounded Israeli soldiers.[1]

The phrase "treated alongside ... Israeli soldiers" makes implications on conditions of treatment which are not supported by the source, suggest removal. RomaC (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I came across several sources that said this in the days after the raid, but I can't seem to find them now. I know that it is standard practice in Israel to treat the injured activists/protesters/etc with the same facilities they treat injured Israelis. But I don't know about 'alongside' as in they were roommates. Probably they were just treated in the same hospital since it would have been the closest/easiest to get to. Either way, it doesn't really matter to me if the sentence stays or goes. However one redeeming quality to the wording is that it is fairly concise. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"...to hospitals in Israel for medical treatment" then? Or simply "hospitals" full stop since it is assumed they were treated if they were taken to a hospital?Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Changed per Cpt's second suggestion, sort of: "...to hospitals in Israel." felt the country should be noted. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the original proposal. But I disagree that we should give the readers leeway to make assumptions. It's just better to be clear. As the wording stands, the activists could have been sent to Israeli hospitals and locked up in the basement. So, I readded the words "... for treatment". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

There exist a few redirects to this article. Are ("Armada of hate" and "Detaining of three Pakistanis in Gaza flotilla raid" appropriate? Is there redirect names to be added or deleted? --Kslotte (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFD would handle it. I think there's maybe a good case to be made for "Armada of hate" (ugly though that term is, it is used and is perhaps a reasonable redirect). "Detaining of three Pakistanis in Gaza flotilla raid" I'm less convinced by - is anyone going to type all that into a search box, instead of, say, just the last three words...?! Anyway - not up to me to decide! Let's punt them all to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. TFOWR 09:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't need RFD, if we are able to come to consensus here. My own opinion is that "Detaining of three Pakistanis in Gaza flotilla raid" should be deleted. I have called for comments from the authors of the redirects. --Kslotte (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
if we are able to come to consensus here - aye, there's the rub ;-) TFOWR 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With some googleing it seems that redirect "Armada of hate" is OK. --Kslotte (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Detaining of three Pakistanis in Gaza flotilla raid" has been proposed for deletion. It will be deleted in seven days if there is no objections. But still give your opinion here to back it up (or oppose) with consensus. --Kslotte (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No objection here - damn silly redirect ;-) TFOWR 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the above prod to an RFD; there's no consensus that Prod can be used for redirects, and, even if used, it should be visible (hence above the redirect); hence there's no benefit to it over the RFD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"War casualties"

I am asking for consensus to remove the content that User:No More Mr Nice Guy has reinserted with this revert.

While the editor is complaining that my explanation for removing the content would be original research, he does not provide any reason for the inclusion of the content. Israel is not in a state of war with the Gaza strip, as neither the Gaza strip nor Hamas are subjects of international law. Gaza is still occupied by Israel, so Israel cannot wage war against territory under its control. See the UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1860 (2009) for the Gaza strip's status. The relevant Wikipedia article also describes the "Gaza war" as an "armed conflict".

Certainly, the Israeli operation against the flotilla was not an act of war and has not been described by Israel, the U.N. or the Quartet for the Middle East as such.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of linking directly to the article as a see also, perhaps link as a pipe, with the reader seeing "Israeli military casualties"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your explanation about international law and its applicability to Gaza is indeed OR. Anyway, you're playing with semantics here. Does it really matter if it's a "war" or an "armed conflict"? If you don't want that link in the article, at least come up with a reasonable explanation for why it should be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The flotilla raid was not an act of war, or a campaign in an ongoing war, and there were no casulties on the Israeli side. As far as I know, no RS referred to it as a war either. The proposal to include this article in See Also is pure agitation. --386-DX (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

"Kenneth O'Keefe, a former US commando who renounced his US citizenship" I am no expert on US law but can somebody renounce there citizenship? He may have said he has renounced it but i would imagine he still remains a US citizen, at least technicaly. Stupidstudent (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SStudent, his Wiki article says he lawfully gave up his US citizenship (see Kenneth_O'Keefe), the source there is however questionable and other sources seem to be taking the info from his website eg. [3]. So, suppose we could say "he says he has given up his US citizenship" or we could just go with the confirmed info which is that he has Irish citizenship. I prefer the second, or else "American-Irish". RomaC (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can give up your citizenship. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Civilians"?

The people on board the blockade-running ships can hardly be called "civilians". Just because they didn't bother bringing proper weapons with them doesn't mean they're civilians. They knew there was a blockade, they knew there were embargoes on cement etc, they knew the navy would intercept them if they tried to smuggle materiel into the war zone; these "civilians" are more like smugglers, privateers or pirates. Labelling them "civilians" in the first sentence of the article is totally out of line with WP:NPOV and suggests a strong anti-Israeli agenda. Soap-boxing beforehand does not legitimise their amateur smuggling attempt. Calling the materiel "humanitarian aid" is another deliberate misnomer that should be replaced.(Huey45 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

The problem is, multiple reliable sources call them that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Also none of that stops them being civilians. By the way Pirate sieze ships at sea, they do not smuggle (which is not a recognised form of combatant. By the way does this mean that any Israli who carries a guhn is not a civilian?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If they're armed, engaged in violence, and running a military blockade, at some point they become "combatants" or "illegal combatants". But anyways, for a NPOV the word that have been agreed to previously to describe the people on the ship is "passengers" or more specifically "activists" if the statement clearly only refers to the activists and not crew or journalists. The word used in the info box is also "passengers". I'm making the change from "civilians" to "passengers". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
At the point they were attacked they had not attempted to run any blockade, they were still in international waters. Moreover self defence does not remove from them the definition of civilian (especially as there is no evidence they were armed with anything more serious then sticks (I shall try and avoid the obvious sarcasm)).Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would the casual reader expect them to be military? It was a private vessel, not part of any military, therefore "civilians" sounds a bit odd. Passengers seems adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"Passengers" is what we've used in the past, unless there a specific need to disambiguate between, say, crew and journalists. "Civilian" in this context make me think of non-military auxiliaries... but that's maybe just me... ;-) TFOWR 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are very disappointing. The blockade was declared illegal by numerous international organisations including the UN and the red cross. Endangering your life while attempting to break an inhumane, illegal, and disgraceful blockade does not make you a pirate, it makes you a hero. Attacking an unarmed passenger vessel in international waters using deadly force on the other hand, is what I would call the definition of piracy. If you look at independent news reports and the world's reactions to the incident, it was the IDF who were called pirates by most of the world. Even if we assume that the blockade was legal, a civilian is defined as "a person not in the armed services or the police force" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and the activists surely fit in that description. --386-DX (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Conversation here has been very civil, let us try to keep it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I modified the phrase. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In this context, "passengers" makes more sense than "civilians". The term "civilian" isn't inaccurate, but "passengers" better rounds off the sentence. When you say passengers, it's clear that the passengers were on the flotilla; when you say civilians, it almost implies that there were other, non-civilian parties on the flotilla. That can be confusing to the reader. ← George talk 07:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We can make it even more general: ... that resulted in the deaths of 9 mammals.
I'm joking. But it does clearly show why specific is better than simply accurate. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Split off investigations section

As the article is again becoming (or just remaining) too long, we could look out for possible sections to split off. The "Investigations" subsection (in the "Aftermath" section) appears to be a good candidate for a spin-off.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving it as is. I think most of the action in this matter is finished. Sure, there will be some reaction to investigation findngs later, but that shouldn't be a problem to fit. Otherwise I think people will just start adding back and we could wind up with a POV fork.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Support, because article is WP:TOOLONG. We save a few kB with such a spin-off. --Kslotte (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I think the investigations should remain on the main page. It's not an overwhelmingly large section at this point and if we want to shorten the article there might be better sections to split off first. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose and Support The article is clearly organised into subsections and is not difficult to navigate. The length of the article is mainly due to the sensitive nature of the event and therefore the extensive list of references. WP:TOOLONG is not a concrete rule, and there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that are longer than this one. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IGNORE. I believe splitting this article further could cause crucial information regarding the event to be be discluded. That being said; I think we could spin off the Investigations section. There are ongoing Israeli, Turkish, and international investigations, and it is likely that this section will get longer over time with the results, and reactions to those results. Let's separate the Investigations section and stop there for now. --386-DX (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Support as in seems the easiest section to remove without stuffing up the article too much (and it's certainly going to grow). Another way to cut down on size would be to consolidate references by seeing if any can be gotten rid of if their content overlaps enough, tho that's a bit more work. Misarxist (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sabotage

Hi all,

There have been some recent edits and additions regarding claims of Israeli sabotage of the ships in the convoy. My thoughts are that including this information is fine as long as it is not stated as fact (Although it is tangential to the main article).

I've done a quite a bit of searching and there seems to be zero conclusive evidence that Israel sabotaged ships in this flotilla, or the Sol_Phryne in 1988. Clearly sabotage may have occurred and the fact that Israel hinted at 'other methods' is significant. But we need to stick to the facts.

This article contains Arafat's 1988 claim of sabotage and clearly states he did not provide evidence to back up the claim: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1988_523261/day-of-rage-ends-in-relative-calm-as-palestinians.html

Here is the edit that added the new section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=370698354&oldid=370694284

and here are the edits that contains my wording modifications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=370735712&oldid=370699612
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=370737384&oldid=370735712

Zuchinni one (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Accused" is more accurate than stating it as fact. And "Israel has been accused of sabotaging Palestinian ships in the past." would be better than the new edit, because editors could start appending "no evidence exists to back up these claims" on a lot of content if we're to start with that. RomaC (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with accused and I'll make the change you suggested. One of the things I do worry about though is that some articles have inaccurately stated as fact that Israel was responsible for the 1988 sinking ... probably a simple mistake since it happened so long ago. I just want to be sure that we don't start rewriting history. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not sure that it is balanced to mention the accusation, without mentioning the lack of proof. I'm quite torn though because I do see your point RomaC and I agree with you "lack of evidence" should not start getting thrown around the rest of the article. But on the other hand just mentioning accusations starts to get into a he-said/she-said. How about we let it simmer a bit in the talk section and see what people suggest? I'm quite open to ideas. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I would avoid it unless there is evidence. I do remember reading at the time that the ships were too large for Israel to sabotage in port using divers. And besides, exactly what could they have sabotaged? There is very little argument that the ships sailed from Cyprus to a point in international waters off the Gaza coast, and were intercepted and apparently in good running order then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There were news reports before the day of the raid stating that the electrical wires of some ships were cut and damaged. Theoretically, there are many ways for Israel to have sabotaged the ships; before departure, on the open seas, have agents among the activists, etc. Please note that there is also the statement of Colonel Itzik Turgeman, who testified in the Knesset saying that "they took care of them", referring to the ships that did not make it. Of course, it is very much possible that the ships broke down solely due to technical problems. We should certainly include the sabotage claims as they were widely reported in the media, but clearly note that these were only claims. --386-DX (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide links on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
From a cursory inspection I'd say that you'd have to do more investigation and dig out more sources in order to justify making the statement that no evidence exists to back up the claims that Israeli frogmen planted the mine that sank the al-Awda. Note that the UPI article used as a source states definitely that, in 1988, frogmen planted limpet mines on a Greek ferry, the Solphrini, which sank in Limassol harbor in the Greek-controlled sector of Cyprus. In order to justify stating that no evidence exists as a statement of fact you need to provide good evidence that the UPI article is wrong. What you have at the moment is a Houston Chronicle article (which was apparently sourced from the Los Angeles Times) that, when Arafat made his accusation, he didn't produce any evidence to back it up. Obviously, just because one person at one particular time makes an accusation without producing evidence, it doesn't mean that there is not any evidence (or even that that person did not have evidence at that particular time). Notice that the UPI goes on to say that, at the same time that the ship was sunk by a mine, three senior PLO members were assassinated using a car bomb nearby and that western intelligence operatives had pointed the finger of suspicion at three Mossad agents had arrived on the island two days beforehand. I'd say that you've got an uphill struggle on your hands.     ←   ZScarpia   13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Not me, I'm not editing the article, just trying to be helpful on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah ... my comment was directed at Zuchinni_one (in particular, his comments of 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) and 06:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)), but, from my indentation, I see that I've actually made it look as though it was directed it at 386-DX.     ←   ZScarpia   15:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi ZScarpia. I actually did quite a lot of searching for evidence one way or another about the Sol Phryne. The problem is that old article was one of the few original articles I found. And while the UPI article does state the sabotage as fact, it is a recent article that is unsourced, and even on the Sol_Phryne article there is no evidence provided, only statements of supposed fact from very recent RS and an editorial implication from a source that is not an RS. Here are a number of articles, two from 1988 and one from 2010 that indicate that although Israel was accused of the Sol Phryne sabotage, there was and still is no direct evidence. My guess is that we'll only know for sure about this stuff in 100 years when Israel decides to de-classify documents.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1239968.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/17/world/plo-exodus-ferry-faces-a-sea-of-trouble.html

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=175639

Also in response to 386-DX, it was not JUST Itzik Turgeman who hinted at sabotage, but ALSO Israel's deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai. I think their statements are important and should be included, but I really dislike the statement "possibly due to an Israeli sabotage" because, without qualifiers that seems to be too strongly stated.

As for the hints ... Israel is well known for being coy about what operations it does and doesn't do. When events occur that favor Israel many people suggest covert-ops and Israel likes to specifically be ambiguous even when they have no involvement whatsoever because they feel it enhances the mystique of their covert agencies. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Zuchinni one. Having done more reading about the Sol_Phryne, I have to agree with what you say about the UPI article, though I think that the Flotilla article should say that no evidence has been produced to prove that Israel was responsible for the previous sabotage rather than no evidence exists. It looks to me as though, the furthest that can be gone is to quote Time magazine as having said that Israel hardly bothered to conceal its role in disabling the ferry. Have you seen this Newsweek article?     ←   ZScarpia   23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi ZScarpia. I really like your suggestion to say "no evidence has been produced". I hadn't seen that particular Newsweek article until now ... were you referencing the bit about Meir Kahane's group claiming responsibility or something else in it? Zuchinni one (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned it because I couldn't see it listed and I thought you might be interested. The two parts that caught my attention were the mentions of the Italian hydrofoils and the linking of the killed PLO members to the Sol Phryne. The article says that they were reportedly involved with chartering it (though I have also seen that link made in one other place). The UPI article, I think, reported in relation to the killing that intelligence agencies pointed out the arrival of Mossad agents using forged Canadian passports in Cyprus just before hand. It's all very vague though.     ←   ZScarpia   12:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Evidence of sabotage exits (hole blown into the hull), and accusations exist per RS, but nothing has been "proven" -- isn't that more accurate? The point I made above regarding "...this has not been proven" or other such appending is if we start here, editors can continue tacking "...this has not been proven" onto a lot of content in this and other articles. Prefer simply reflecting that something happened and accusations have been made, without adding interpretive qualifications. RomaC (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that saying that nothing was proven is a statement of opinion (which, as such, would have to be attributed), but, to me, saying that no evidence has been produced, which is true to the best of my knowledge in the case talked about, is a statement of fact and is quite different.     ←   ZScarpia   22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Questionable additions

"The cargo of the ships included medical supplies as well as weapons such as knives, clubs, slingshots, bulletproof vests, gas masks and night vision goggles, which indicate hostile goals.[163] A statement released by the Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel said that violence against the soldiers was pre-planned, and that "light weaponry" was found on the ships, including pistols that would have been seized from IDF commandos. Israel stated that the naval forces "found weapons prepared in advance and used against our forces."[149][164] IDF photos displayed daggers, kitchen and pocket knives, metal and wooden poles, flares, wrenches and slingshots with marble projectiles said to have been used against the soldiers.[text 4][162] The activists were said to have also lobbed stun grenades at IDF soldiers, and the IDF furnished video reflecting this.[165] The IDF later reported that its searches of the ship uncovered a cache of bulletproof vests, night-vision goggles, and gas masks.[166]"

Sigh. RomaC (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh is right! There is some worrisome content here. I don't like the phrase "which indicate hostile goals" seems quite POV and if its a quote from the source it should state that it is a quote. But even then I'm not sure its appropriate. Also I don't understand the intended meaning of "and that "light weaponry" was found on the ships, including pistols that would have been seized from IDF commandos". What does "would have been seized mean"? As for the other IDF claims, it might be OK to mention them as claims, but the only things we have seen video evidence for are metal bars, slingshots, stun grenades, and gas masks. As for kitchen knives etc ... sure they CAN be weapons just like my 3rd grade teacher told me a pencil is a weapon ... but come on ... of course they'll find stuff like that on a ship. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
All the best cruise ships have slingshots.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh Zuchinni you're doing your middle of the road dance! Yes friends, I could say that pretty well every ship on the sea has respirators for fire fighting, also night vision capability, and flares, and journalists regularly wear kevlar, and yes, kitchens have knives -- but that would be original research. Honestly I am simultaneously impressed and disgusted at the concerted selective source sampling that fuels the relentless campaign for Israel's "Armada of Terror" narrative here. As this cadre of editors are either indefatigable or working by the hour, I'm inclined to suggest other neutral editors go with the flow, and add macaroni, coriander and lentils to the above list of "weapons."
Can I say that I also delight in the above addition supposing that the passengers prepared in advance for violence by disarming the commandos when they landed? Maybe that suggestion earns a spot in the article on its idiocy alone. All this is of course from the Jerusalem Post, a paper with 1/10th the circulation of the Albuquerque Journal. Question: In the wake of Editor Caroline Glick's "Let's slaughter all the Jews / Islam and terror brighten up your day" videos, is the Jerusalem Post a hasbara vehicle, or a RS?
RomaC (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If I remember right coriander is evil but cinnamon is OK ... which is weird since no one can eat a tablespoon of cinnamon. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
On a more serious note, I think the "prepared in advance bit" came from an interview with the captain of the Mavi Marmara, where he said some people were cutting off ship railing to create clubs and he tried to confiscate them and prevent any violence from occurring. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we know, it's normal for passengers on ships to bring angle grinders and take apart the metal railing. They were going to use the bars they produced for a game of shuffleboard, but suddenly they were attacked and grabbed whatever came first into their hand. Switchblades, slipjoint and combat knives are also found on every passenger ship. Sometimes someone might slip and mistakenly stab someone in the stomach. These things happen. No need to mention any of this as it has nothing to do with why people died.
By the way, anyone in particular you want to accuse of being a paid editor, or is that just a general smear against anyone who doesn't agree with you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, I take it you support the addition of the above content without reservation and regard it as policy-compliant? RomaC (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the article should include information about the IHH announcing they will employ violence and how they prepared for said violence. This includes, but is not limited to, chopping up the rails to create metal bars, possession of various types of knives of the sort you don't normally find on passenger ships, utilization of slingshots with marbles as ammunition, etc.
What I don't regard as policy compliant is your disparaging editors you don't agree with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The words "which indicate hostile goals" should be changed to "which the IDF claimed indicate hostile goals". Marokwitz (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless we are talking about mining, the word claim and its various forms are POV. Suggest deleting the whole clause, the reader is free to draw his own conclusions about what those things indicate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Humanitarian aid" revisited

User:Jiujitsuguy has removed first-reference terming "humanitarian aid" with the edit summary "Lede: Cited ref does not refer to the cargo as "humanitarian" aid. It just says "aid." If you're going to classify it as "Humanitarian aid," cite a different RS)". The source does say "humanitarian aid", in the first graph: "UNITED NATIONS, MAY 31 -- Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, urged the U.N. Security Council in an emergency session Monday to condemn Israel's raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip". Further there are 20 reliable sources cited here on Talk that say "humanitarian aid". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't revert :) but per my comments above the recent removal of "humanitarian aid" does seem to go against what we see in the preponderance of RS. RomaC (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The editor probably wasn't aware of the extensive discussion that took place here. I've reverted with a note of said discussion accordingly. ← George talk 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD for List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza

Editors may be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza. TFOWR 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No really. Notify, don't try and sway other editors' opinions. TFOWR 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Another unnecessary AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza with failed arguments like WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Official response by Israeli courts against the file suit by Israeli Human rights organisation Gisha

You may also help updating table with Gisha list. If we add 2 lists. No more major update required. Kasaalan (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While I welcome the notification, I am concerned that it appears to take a position as to whether the article should or should not be deleted. TFOWR 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a failed argument, no bias involved to represent it such. Nominator did not put any effort in previous debate, seek consensus, or participated the article. If someone doesn't seek any consensus before AFD, I do not assume much good faith. When I added the list in the related articles, people asked the pages are toolong so I should add content in its own article. When some people show the effort, some editors come out of blue with personal arguments and start AFD, and doesn't even notice other related users. Failed argument is my own view about AFD, however I post the text where Israeli and Palestinian users co-exist. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Then allow me to be clearer: you should refactor your post. When you post notifications about future AfDs you should not indicate your opinion on the merits of the AfD. TFOWR 15:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted my own view, in pages Palestinians and Israelis mutually exist, as well as 3rd party people like me. Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_Israel-related_topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force along with Gaza Flotilla and WP:Palestine. That is enough by my standards for NPOV. I notified both sides. Only comment in the text is AFD with a failed argument is unnecessary. However I will follow your advice and do not comment next time.
The main issue with AFD is, there was only 2 contributor of the page [1 creator and me] since it is a new article. Yet the AFD nominator didn't debate in talk, didn't seek any consensus anywhere, first PROD then AFD, without even noticing article creator and me. And when I notify all related wiki-project users there is the concern of Canvas since I stated my opinion. I have no influence on other users and everyone has their own view anyway. The main issue is nobody cares proper pre-AFD steps, and rushes AFDs without noticing related users. People cannot watch every page all the time, you can't have AFD with random people passing by without noticing actual page contributors or main article users. Kasaalan (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

9 activists were killed... 9 passengers died

Encyclopedias are not supposed to repeat themselves needlessly. Its tragic that 9 people died, but we needn't say that more than once in the lead. I'm removing the statement from the first sentence.Kinetochore (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Made bold edit to lead

I changed the assertion that the ships were carrying humanitarian aid to say that that is the position of the organizers, as reflected in the source given here. If Israel were indeed convinced that all the aid was indeed humanitarian in nature, there would be no issue here. It is POV to make the statement that the flotilla was bringing in humanitarian aid. Also the source specifically says that the purpose was not simply to bring in the aid but to break the blockade. It is POV to censor that out. It was not merely a secondary issue, but a primary one according to the words of their own organizers. The purpose was to "get around" the blockade. Stellarkid (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources dispute that claim so it doesn't need this weasely qualification. We don't have to pander to the fringe Israeli pov as you seem to think. Could someone please revert? Misarxist (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The question of if it was to make a point (and headlines) instead of or along with aid is not just Israeli POV. Nothing weaselly about it. Take a look at Free Gaza's websiste and their press releases over the years.Cptnono (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that anyone disputed that the flotilla was carrying aid: your edit makes it appear that the organisers claim to have been carrying humanitarian aid, but that Israel disputes this. My understanding is that what Israel disputes is a little more complex, and that Israel does not dispute that the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid. TFOWR 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with TFOWR, the flotilla was carrying aid in it's cargo, I think this is undisputed. The Israelis didn't claim otherwise, but contended that the cargo includes also less innocent items such as military grade bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles. In addition, it is undisputed that the purpose of the flotilla was to break the Israeli blockade, this should not be omitted. Marokwitz (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see much reason to use weaselly phrases like it was carrying humanitarian aid "according to its organizers". I assume you don't dispute that thousands of reliable sources describe the flotilla's cargo as humanitarian aid? Israel confiscated the humanitarian aid, inspected it, and trucked it to the Gaza border by land; Israel does not dispute that there was humanitarian aid on the ships. If you want to say why Israel confiscated the cargo (fearing that the cargo contained weapons), then say that. Don't insert weaselly phrases to imply what you want to say.
Also, I have no idea why you're insisting on separating out the blockade of Gaza into two separate wikilinks. When we have a single article describing the blockade, Wikipedia's linking guidelines generally suggest we link to it instead of breaking the link up into its component parts. ← George talk 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the comment by George I removed the words "according to the organizers" . Marokwitz (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the current wording. From my knowledge of reliable sources, "supplies, including humanitarian aid" would reflect some kind of consensus or middle ground of the reports. English sources often use "Gaza flotilla", while a significant number of non-English, e.g. German sources, use "aid convoy" or something similar. But the more detailed descriptions very much converge to the the wording above, which is also quite close to the current text of the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The source makes a point of adding "according to the organizers." Please read the source. WP neutral voice cannot say it was humanitarian aid. We must use the source. If you find another RS that says unequivocally that there was humanitarian aid and only humanitarian aid on board these ships, then fine. Meantime, we must use the sources... not original research. I will add the phrase until another source is provided. Stellarkid (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any sources in the lead at all, if this were a perfect article. The lead should reflect what most sources agree on, not what a single source says.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this. Simply put up several RS's that say unequivocally that, and there will be no argument from me. RS's that have a rep for objectivity. You could do this right here in this section on the talk page and we can analyze what the sources are saying and their reliability etc and come to a consensus and a conclusion. Stellarkid (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There are dozens of reliable sources that either state unequivocally that the flotilla carried aid, or that it carried supplies, including medical equipment, or some similar statement. As you probably know how to use Google Search, I assume that you are aware of this. Because the information is already included in the body of the text, based on reliable source, and we don't necessarily need references in the lead section, I have just put in one of those sources that use both "aid" and "supplies" in the text, and contains a short description of the cargo.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ec --CS32en has removed the "according to organizers" and used the following link as support. This link, however, does not say that the ships were carrying humanitarian aid and therefore is irrelevant to the point. This is an personal interpretation of the article which does not hold on scrutinizing the article. Please put your references here on the talk page so we can see if they actually say what you say they say. Stellarkid (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I have changed "humanitarian aid" to "aid" in my edit. If you haven't found the word "aid" in the source, please look at the top section of the Financial Times article.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I did find it and do not think it supports your contention. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No it does say it was carrying aid, you are correct. Stellarkid (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and spent a few seconds of my time to do the requisite Google search, found a reliable source which explicitly states that the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, and added it to the article. Enjoy. ← George talk 03:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, thanks for that, and I have done the requisite reading of all the sources that have been added to the article, taking more than a few seconds of my time. You wouldn't be kind enough to take a few extra seconds of your time to link to it here, would you? In fact the sentence that you are asserting to support your POV would be nice as well. I put my links here and would appreciate the same thoughtfulness from others. Be that as it may, as I said, I have read them all and do not see a RS that explicitly states the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid.Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • United Press International (UPI) - "Israel, which has threatened to mount pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear installations, has also been in a state of high alert after a deadly confrontation with a Turkish-organized flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid for the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, blockaded by Israel for 3 years."[4]
  • New York Sun - "In sending its defense force to raid the flotilla that was seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to Hamas stronghold in Gaza, Mr. Netanyahu was facing up to precisely the kind of problem Mr. Holder was facing."[5]
  • Xinhua News Agency - "Since Israeli ships attacked one of the six ships of a relief flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza on Monday, May 31 with a death toll of two and 30 other injuries, and the denunciation of the Israeli assault on the aid convoy has been heated up worldwide."[6]
  • Inter Press Service (IPS) - "It also succeeded in getting a large majority of U.S. lawmakers to fire a shot across the bow of the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which has led the international chorus of criticism against the Jewish state since the deadly Israeli seizure in international waters of a Turkish vessel carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza."[7]
  • Toronto Star - "According to a report from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, itself did not carry humanitarian aid but was part of the Gaza-bound flotilla that carried humanitarian aid."[8]
  • Montreal Gazette - "Hundreds of protesters turned out for rallies in Montreal and Toronto on Saturday to demonstrate against Israel's blockade of Gaza, which has been brought back into the international spotlight by the Israeli military's deadly raid this past week on a humanitarian aid flotilla."[9]
  • Washington Post - "Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, urged the U.N. Security Council in an emergency session Monday to condemn Israel's raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip and to set up a U.N. inquiry to hold accountable those responsible for it."[10]
  • The Times - "He spoke as Israel released the first of hundreds of activists seized on board the aid flotilla which had been shipping humanitarian aid to Gaza."[11]
  • BBC News - "Fears for Bolton Gaza humanitarian aid ship man" [12]
  • Press Association (PA) - "Demonstrators also expressed their anger that the Israeli navy has boarded one of the last ships on the flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza."[13]
  • Aljazeera - "South Africa has recalled its ambassador to Israel amid continuing diplomatic anger over Israel's deadly attack on humanitarian aid ships bound for Gaza."[14]
  • CNN - "Nine Turkish citizens were killed Monday after violence erupted on one of six ships in a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Gaza Strip."[15]
  • Baltimore Sun - "Early Monday, Israeli navy commandos attacked a flotilla of humanitarian aid destined for the occupied Gaza Strip in international waters. The ships were carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian supplies that are banned from Gaza under Israel's directives, including toys, wheelchairs, athletic equipment and medicines."[16]
  • Frontline - "THE international outcry against Israel's pre-dawn assault on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza has been growing louder by the day, suggesting that West Asia is poised for a major change."[17]
  • Christian Science Monitor - "An American-Turkish dual citizen killed during an Israeli commando raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla was among activists buried in Turkey on Thursday."[18]
  • Haaretz - "State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss on Tuesday said he will probe Israel's deadly raid last month on a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla."[19]
  • Ynet - "Hamas is blocking the delivery of the humanitarian aid that arrived on the Gaza flotilla, defense establishment sources said on Wednesday."[20]
  • People's Daily - "President of the General Assembly Ali Treki Monday condemned the Israeli storming of a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has resulted in killing of more than 10 civilians."[21]
  • Agence France-Presse - "Nine Turks were killed by Israeli commandos who boarded a Turkish vessel carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, which is under an Israeli blockade."[22]
Take your pick. The current wording should be changed though, from humanitarian aid including construction materials, to humanitarian aid and construction materials. ← George talk 09:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As for my review of reliable sources, the cargo is mostly being referred to as "aid", not "humanitarian aid". However, most sources who go into more detail report that the ships carried humanitarian aid, or list items such as medical supplies, which are generally regarded as humanitarian aid. I would therefore prefer to write that the flotilla was carrying "aid, including buildung material and ...". Some sources describe building material as supplies rather than aid, but most sources don't make such a distinction, and many sources use term supplies to describe all or part of what they generally classify as aid.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to treat it like an abbreviation. The same way we replace "Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief" with "IHH" after the first use, I would write that it was humanitarian aid the first time, then just refer to it as aid from then on out. For brevity, if nothing else. My bigger objection is to the attempts to censor readily verifiable information, rather than the specific wording. ← George talk 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


It looks like "humanitarian aid" was removed again here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=369972707&oldid=369929364 Anyone have a problem with reverting it? Zuchinni one (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it failed WP:V, which is non-negotiable. With some of these sources it could pass WP:V, but it would still fail WP:NPOV because there are plenty of equivalent sources that describe what the ships were carrying and do not describe it as "humanitarian aid". Just for example, AP, BBC, The Telegraph. Since the description of the contents is disputed and since humanitarian aid is an ill-defined concept anyway, the best option is a neutral term such as "cargo". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Jalapenos' nonsensical argument aside, I would encourage that edit being reverted. If editor's want to add the Israeli viewpoint on the issue, I would encourage that, but censoring the majority world view is not the proper way to do that. ← George talk 21:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be conducive to cooperative discussion if, rather than baselessly dismiss others' arguments as "nonsensical", you provided some support for your own assertion that the humanitarian aid label is "the majority world view". As I've shown, the label, which is aggressively pushed by one side in the dispute, is not accepted by many neutral sources, so for us to use it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with JDE, Stellarkid, etal. While the initial assessment by the majority of sources may have been that this was simply a "humanitarian mission," subsequent (and thus more reliable) descriptions by reliable sources were far more nuanced in their descriptions, to say the least. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Shocking. ← George talk 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Citing articles that do not mention that the cargo included humanitarian aid does not show that the "label... is not accepted by many neutral sources." I provided articles from the exact same news agencies you mentioned, which do indeed describe the cargo as humanitarian aid. Tell me, if an article mentioned U.S. President Barack Obama, but it fails to mention that he is a Democrat, does that mean that that article is saying that he isn't a Democrat? No, of course not; that would be similarly nonsensical. ← George talk 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The cargo was humanitarian aid even if it was also a PR stunt. And the other part of the problem is that it was humanitarian aid but Israel thought materials like cement would be used for tunnels and stuff. So maybe just spell it out more: "... carrying humanitarian aid, and to challenge the blockade. Israel expressed concerns that the cargo needed to be inspected to make sure it could not be used for military purposes and called it provocative." or something.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I have no problem with a wording along the lines of your suggestion. ← George talk 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The point, which I already made, is that there are many articles that describe the contents of the ships and eschew the term "humanitarian aid", using other terms instead. The Obama analogy is false for an additional reason, which is that the Democratic Party is a proper name and as such is indisputable, while "humanitarian aid" is an ill-defined label. While I respect Cptnono's POV, it still hasn't been demonstrated that "humanitarian aid" reflects the mainstream POV, and my evidence indicating that it doesn't hasn't been contended with. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Believe those arguing that the ref didn't support "humanitarian aid" should have just popped the term + this event into a Google search and saw what happened, as George did. Honestly, It would be nice if some editors looked at sources for improving the article, not for sources advancing their positions. RomaC (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Popping" "humanitarian aid" into Google does not prove that there was (only) humanitarian aid on those ships and not detonators, for example. Many references simply say that the organizers said they were taking in humanitarian aid. This would not reflect in a simple Google search of "humanitarian aid" & "flotilla." Thank heavens we still do a little more research than that on WP articles. Stellarkid (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate it JDE but we of course will disagree here and there :) . I still think "cargo" is too vague. Maybe "supplies and building materials"? I think t is clear that there was humanitarian aid but that can be assumed from the IHHs name being just before it. We could use "aid including/supplies such as..." but when we can't even make mention of the weapons I doubt there would be any consensus to start spelling things out clearly. I just really don't see the problem with "humanitarian aid" as long as it is clear why the materials needed to be inspected and that it was also a stunt to publicize the blockade (or whatever prettier wording Free Gaza used).Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Supplies" works. Even "aid" seems to have a pretty large following in the mainstream media. The problem with "humanitarian aid" is that it carries some assertions regarding the nature and expected effect of the cargo that are not necessarily true, and this is apparently why most mainstream media articles eschew it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. "Humanitarian aid" presupposes that there were no weapons or such being brought, but food and medical supplies and such. Since we don't know for sure what was on the ships, "aid" would cover everything, including possible weapons. Stellarkid (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Stellar et al, there are 20 sources above from all over the world saying "humanitarian aid" -- your dissenting opinions as editors do not matter. RomaC (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, dissenting opinions do matter. That said, I fail to see the issue here: WP:RS say that the ships were carrying humanitarian aid: that does not discount the possibility/reality/I-don't-really-care of the ships also carrying "other stuff". Saying that the ships were carrying "humanitarian aid" (backed by WP:CITEs from WP:RS) is fine. As I understand it, the real issue is not that the ships were carrying humanitarian aid - it's that they may also have been carrying "other stuff". TFOWR 15:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No decenting sources matter, not opinions. If you can provide sources (RS of course) that say that the aid was not Humanitarian, or that it contained weapons Ect then please provide them. Otherwise all you are doiong is stating your opinion, that is not a source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that was unclear: my intent was to suggest that we shouldn't dismiss our fellow editors simply because we disagree with them. Dissenting opinions on policy and sources matter. TFOWR 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree. And I understand your concern, TFOWR, but as I understand policy, dissenting opinions, especially if they are SPA editors' personal opinions, really do not matter. Now of course this may send some editors out to cherry pick sources that don't say "humanitarian aid" (meanwhile probably ignoring all sources that do say humanitarian aid), but that's advocacy/WP:COI and that's not the way this project operates. If there is a more prominent term for what the ships were carrying, in all surveyed RS, let's have it here for consideration. But, again, editors' personal opinions don't matter. RomaC (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Checking back in here with you guys from a busy day of writing opera articles! What about a compromise, "a cargo described by many as humanitarian aid". Yes, there is a little weasel in the workd "many", but it is true, and it lets the reader know not everyone feels that way. Feel free to play with it or not, as you please. Glad to see the brush wars have mostly died down. Later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Or perhaps better, "a cargo widely described as humanitarian in nature"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose We need to make a factual statement about the cargo, as the majority of reliable sources do. Reliable sources do (apart from maybe some exceptions) refer to the judgment of others when describing the cargo. Presenting the fact in that way creates the impression that the cargo would have been something different than what is has been described as. I repeat my suggestion to use "aid" instead of "humanitarian aid" in the lead, reflecting how the majority of reliable sources describe the cargo.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the removal of humanitarian aid. Come on it was humanitarian aid do you honestly think it would not be plastered around the world if anything on board the ships was not humanitarian aid, this is one of the reasons I stopped looking in on this article this is a major push of isreali POV. Dose any right minded person see this aid flotla as an ...armada of hate and violence... this is pure blatant propoganda by the Israeli government. Mo ainm~Talk 18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply "Aid" seems to be picking up steam with several editors. Would that be acceptable?Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. No matter how you slice it, it's aid. Whether or not it is aid that is humanitarian, or is used for nefarious purposes, may safely be left as an exercise for the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Arab leader have historically and notoriously repressed Arab refugees for their own selfish purposes and/or making Israel look bad. This is not a fringe view. Looks it up, my friend. This boat was another in the long line of acts perpetuated just to inflame the situation, but in no way to actually "aid" anyone. Said position is what sources are implicating.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that "aid" is a fairly generic term, and does not convey intent on the part of third parties. On a more practical note, it is very likely the only term likely to gain consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
@Brewcrewer, would "aid" be acceptable if it was clearly spelled out that some saw this as a provocative headline grabbing journey instead of a humanitarian one? Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't the flotilla's stated purpose to break the blockade? If this is correct, then we shouldn't be calling what they did "aid", humanitarian or otherwise. We should be calling them "blockade runners" or something like that. If not, then never mind. Rklawton (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what press release you read. Both reasons have been given.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The stumbling block here seems to be attempts to force a false compromise between a term used by RS around the world on the one hand, and the contrary position held by basically one country on the other. We should of course note Israel's position in the article, and we do at length -- but it's our responsibility to go with the preponderance of reliable sources for our descriptive terms. Here, that term is "humanitarian aid" per the 20 RS listed above. RomaC (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh I like this game. So "aid" is factually correct. And there has been enough of a dispute to the purpose of the journey that if editors want to dispute the use of the term they should. Preponderance(which is not exactly in such numbers that it is clear) butts heads with NPOV. And of course it isn't just Israel. Reporters from other countries have asked if it was humanitarian in nature and Free Gaza hasn't even been clear about it. But back to numbers from source as seen in a goggle NEWS ARCHIVE search (not an exact science but damn fun) starting in March but ending in May (when I recall first hearing about the trip) and using "Free Gaza" since anything mentioning IHH will say humanitarian and Free Gaza was more on the ball with getting the word out anyways:
Oops Add recent results (June):
I am still not against "humanitarian aid" exactly but any argument of "humanitarian" being the preferred description to the point that it is primary now has a little dent in it so you might want to provide other reasoning. Other words to try out include "materials" "supplies" "medical aid" and so on. We could always spell it all out too. Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think editors should take a step back, and review the course of this discussion. It started out as an argument that the term "humanitarian aid" wasn't supported by the sources cited in the article. Not a great argument, but at least it was based on Wikipedia's policies. In response, I showed that reliable sources for the term are readily available, from all over the world (including quotes from Turkish, American, and Israeli government sources, as well as the United Nations). Then it turned into an argument that we shouldn't use the term because "humanitarian aid is an ill-defined concept." I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean, but it's an undeniably biased argument, with no reverence for Wikipedia's policies. Compromise isn't meant for appeasing the personal biases of editors, so if there isn't a reasoned argument for why "humanitarian aid" should not be used, based on Wikipedia policies, I see no reason to change the wording.
Instead, we should be trying to properly reflect views from both sides (all sides, weighted by how widely their views are held). That is the proper interpretation of WP:NPOV, not some pseudo-censorship of the article by neutering specific terms that certain editors object to for personal reasons. ← George talk 05:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, here's my proposal. I think we should change the first paragraph in the lead, by adding an additional sentence somewhere along the lines of "Israel feared that the ships might be transporting weapons." Currently, the first paragraph mentions the flotilla, that it was carrying humanitarian aid, and that it was stopped by the Israelis, but it doesn't say why, which is a key part of the equation. Rather than trying to censor the term "humanitarian aid", we should add mention that Israel didn't trust that there was only humanitarian aid on board, which was the impetus for them to stop the ship in the first place. ← George talk 05:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Look at you being all level headed. I personally don't think "humanitarian" is false. I also haven't even seen sources disputing if the aid was humanitarian in nature. To be honest, it probably isn't even a big deal since it looks like the problem is if the intent is spelled out which means simply clarifying the next sentence. That being said "aid" is also correct and I am not sure if it is neutering it or not. BTW, no train ride to PDX for me it looks like :( .Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(not ec) I don't recall if Israel did fear if their were weapons. From what I have seen they want to inspect all cargo to make sure. I mentioned up above that there was a fear of cement being used for military purposes though. (that read too confusing) You are on the right track with the explaining the why. "...humanitarian aid (or maybe just aid). Israel wanted to inspect the cargo because/for/..." Is that what you are getting at?Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not exactly sure if Israel's stance was a fear that they were smuggling weapons, or a fear that they were smuggling cement (which has the alternative use of tunnel construction, which in turn leads to smuggling weapons). Probably both, but I'd much rather see the both sides' positions on the issue laid out, rather than trying to find some middle ground based on neither. WP:Compromise is just an essay, but it gives some sagely advice: "Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. 'Splitting the difference' compromise is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Instead of compromising on the term "humanitarian aid", our focus should be to lay out the views of both sides.
...and lame about missing out on PDX, but it could be worse; I'm moving that day. :( ← George talk 06:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, George. But as Cpt notes do we really know that Israel stopped the GFF because they feared it was carrying weapons? My impression was that they stopped it as a matter of policy, ie to enforce their ongoing naval blockade. As for qualifying with "stopped the GFF out of fear it might carry items used for military purposes" or somesuch, it should be noted that macaroni noodles are also on the list of items Israel is banning. RomaC (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure exactly why Israel stopped the flotilla, but we should be working to find reliable sources to answer that question, and then adding that to the article, instead of endlessly bickering over whether "humanitarian aid" is a real word or not, or whether sources that refer to it as aid without the word humanitarian in front intend to say that it wasn't humanitarian aid, etc. ← George talk 06:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops!Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with "humanitarian aid", I'm happy with "aid". I've only skimmed the recent posts, but there seems to be a welcome movement towards focussing on "the bigger question" ("why was the flotilla raided?") TFOWR 09:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would lik eto see both arguments, so text like "widley reported as humanitarian aid (RS to support) but that this has been contested (RS to support)."Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    Has it been contested that the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid? I'm aware that there are claims that there was "other stuff" as well as aid - which is "the bigger question" I allude to above, but I continue to maintain that stating that the flotilla was not carrying aid is wrong, and unsupported by WP:RS. (So far as I know, even Israel acknowledges that the flotilla was carrying aid - Israel's issue is that there was "other stuff" too). TFOWR 14:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the dispute is over "dual use" items such as concrete, that are certainly useful in civilian building, but which is also useful for Hamas in their activity against Israel (or at least useful according to Israel).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
That's my understanding, too. And I believe that this should be in the article. I do not believe, though, that carrying concrete magically renders the humanitarian aid non-humanitarian ;-) TFOWR 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
So effectilvy no one has said this was not humanitarian aid. Well in that case we cannot refuse to call it (or deny the use of a phrase) that no RS rejected. If n o one has said it was not humanitarian then neither can we. I can see no justfified reason not to call it Humanitarian under these circamstances. So a new susgestion "widley reported as humanitarian aid (RS to support) but that Israle has said that that some of this aid may have dual use(RS to support)."Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Works for me ;-) TFOWR 14:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Widely reported" would sound as if this would need further investigation. Given the large number of reliable sources who make a factual statement about the cargo, we need to make a factual statement as well.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that not all sources have called it hunanitarian, as such this is an attmept at a workable compromise. We state the actual situation that it has been widely (not universaly) called Huamitarian and that Israle has claimed some some materails may have other uses.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
We should describe the cargo as "aid", per the prepoderance of usage in reliable sources. Reliable sources have not described the cargo as widely reported as humanitarian aid, and using a wording that conveys the impression that reliable sources would doubt the accuracy of the term is a much more significant change to the meaning of the sentence than choosing "aid" over "humanitarian aid", or vice versa. Furthermore, describing the goods as aid does not contradict Israel's position that some could be used for military purposes. However, I have never heard anyone describe cement as a "dual use good", so we need to put "dual use" in quotes when referring to the Israeli position.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Are bulletproof vests and rifle scopes "dual use"? I recall seeing reports and pictures of that kind of stuff found on the Mavi Marmara. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your comment.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This says "A recently released video shows a group of men donning bulletproof vests and arming themselves with rods before the naval assault.", and you can see a picture of the vests here, about 3/4 down the page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is about the cargo of the flotilla, not about equipment that was or was not on the ships. (The red vests certainly don't look like bulletproof vest, and other sources would have reported this if they were such vests.)  Cs32en Talk to me  16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Cs32en is essentially correct; there is some distinction between a ships cargo and the possessions of people on board that ship. For instance, if passengers put on bulletproof vests, fearful that the IDF might turn them into swiss cheese, that doesn't make the ships cargo magically non-humanitarian in nature. I'd be interested to see the source on the rifle scope, how many there were, and what they were used for (e.g., were they used as a telescope to spot the Israeli ships coming, or were there dozens of them intended to be attached to weapons). ← George talk 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be utterly astonished if there was any significant quantity of anything that wouldn't look good in print. Or, I guess, on YouTube.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid, including nutrition and construction materials. Construction materials should be stressed. However demolishion of palestinian homes should also be linked. Kasaalan (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulletproof vests would be aid, if not necessarily humanitarian in nature. I could live with "aid". And we have RS that use that. "Humanitarian aid" does not leave any wiggle room if it were to turn out that the cargo was not necessarily "humanitarian" in nature. Stellarkid (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
But then, were bulletproof vests part of the cargo intended for Gaza? Also (I'm interested in your opinion), since Israel and Gaza appear, according to the Israeli legal justification, to be in a state of armed conflict, would it be legitimate for Palestinians to mount a blockade and board neutral vessels bound for Israel in international waters to check for any cargo that might have a military use?     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we not get into the discussion by your last question.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, questions concerning the "legitimacy" of anything are not really our job here at WP. That would be editorializing, not reporting. Stellarkid (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right, so please consider my question unasked. When you talked about if it were to turn out that the cargo was not necessarily "humanitarian" in nature, what exactly are you anticipating? Isn't trying to leave some "wriggle room" a form of trying to predict the future, something that is supposed to be avoided in Wikipedia articles?     ←   ZScarpia   00:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies: I jumped in here without reading all the comments thoroughly. I see that you've already supplied an answer to my question about what you were anticipating: "Humanitarian aid" presupposes that there were no weapons or such being brought, but food and medical supplies and such. Since we don't know for sure what was on the ships, "aid" would cover everything, including possible weapons. Isn't that a form of trying to predict the future? Wasn't a large effort put into showing that the ships weren't carrying anything "offensive" before they sailed? Do you have any reliable sources which themselves question whether the aid was humanitarian or which report that notable people or organisations have questioned whether the aid was humanitarian? And isn't it well established that the blockade was and is about its economic and living standards effects as much as preventing anything that might have a military use from getting through?     ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article (from generally accepted to be right-wing pro-Israel source) uses the word "aid" "The flotilla included three ships of passengers and three cargo ships with aid. "Aid" seems to be agreeable to RS on all sides of the political spectrum and is reasonably neutral. It should be a simple matter to agree on this. Stellarkid (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that we need to use terminology that is approved by "right-wing pro-Israel" sources? Do editors understand that WP:NPOV does not say to neutralize the text of the article based on what all sides of a conflict agree to? WP:NPOV says to reflect, without bias, all significant views held among reliable sources. I demonstrated above that there are reliable sources of the view that the cargo included humanitarian aid. Therefore, per NPOV, we should reflect that view in the article. If your suggestion is to intermingle the terms "humanitarian aid" and "aid" (using both mixed throughout the article), then I'm fine with that. I would never suggest that we must use the term humanitarian aid every time we talk about the cargo, but it's also improper to try to censor out the term. ← George talk 03:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, no one said anything had to be "approved" by anyone. The point I was making was that there was a simple collaborative word that works in this context, and as I said, it is neutral. The article does not say that the cargo "includes" humanitarian aid, but that it "was" humanitarian aid. Big difference. While there may have been humanitarian aid on board, WP should not give the impression that we know that there was only humanitarian aid on board. Since there are plenty of RS on both sides, and since I think it was Cs32en who demonstrated that there were even more RS that simply said "aid," then "aid" is best used in WP voice as acceptable to most perspectives. No one is suggesting censoring out "humanitarian aid" simply acknowledging that most journalists did not actually examine the cargo but took someone's word for it that it represented that. The more honest (or straightforward) journalists do acknowledge that by either using a quote or saying something like :"According to organizers, the cargo was humanitarian aid." Like everything else, this is particularly important in the lead, which so often is all people read. Stellarkid (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can see where you're coming from, and I completely agree that WP shouldn't give the impression that there was only humanitarian aid on board. However, I don't think that the sentence said that before the latest round of edits. Before your first edit, the sentence read "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), was attempting deliver humanitarian aid and building supplies to the Gaza Strip, and break the blockade of Gaza." To me that says that humanitarian aid was part of the cargo, but that were other things as well (namely, building supplies). And as I mentioned earlier in this discussion, I would suggest using the term aid as an abbreviation for humanitarian aid, writing "humanitarian aid" in the first instance of a paragraph or section, but then using the shorter term "aid" thereafter. That means I'm agreeing that aid is an alternative neutral term, but I don't understand what you mean by it being "best used in WP voice as acceptable to most perspectives." That implies that the term humanitarian aid isn't acceptable to "most perspectives", and I've yet to see a source for which perspective it is that disputes that the boats carried humanitarian aid (despite requests for such from several editors above). ← George talk 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a clairification here: As it can be confirmed from the released images of the bulletproof vests, they have very clear and large red crescent amblems on them. It is standard practice for the emergency medical staff operating in war environments to wear marked bulletproof vests. Therefore, the vests very well fit within the definition of medical supplies and thus humanitarian aid. --386-DX (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli government's viewpoint

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports the following on the flotilla's cargo:[27]

"Flotilla Aid

[...]

As of June 7, the equipment offloaded was loaded onto 26 trucks. (An additional eight trucks are waiting at the Kerem Shalom crossing to enter the Gaza Strip.) The equipment includes:

1. 300 wheelchairs
2. 300 new mobility scooters
3. 100 special mobility scooters for the disabled
4. Hundreds of crutches
5. 250 hospital beds
6. 50 sofas
7. Four tons of medicine
8. 20 tons of clothing, carpets, school bags, cloth and shoes
9. Various hospital equipment - closets and cabinets, operating theater equipment, etc.
10. Playground equipment
11. Mattresses

The equipment remaining at Ashdod Port on the three ships which have not been offloaded include some 2000 tons of construction equipment - building materials and tools, and construction waste (rubble, toilets, sinks and cement) for re-use.

It should be noted that:

1. The equipment does not constitute humanitarian aid in the accepted sense (basic foodstuffs, new and functional equipment, fresh medicines). [...]"

  Cs32en Talk to me  09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And, to expand your quote:
3. The humanitarian aid on all the ships was scattered in the ships' holds and thrown onto piles and not packed properly for transport. The equipment was not packaged and not properly placed on wooden bases.
So what does that mean? From the Israeli MFA's perspective, there was both some equipment that wasn't humanitarian aid ("in the accepted sense", though I'm not sure what definition they're using), as well as poorly packed humanitarian aid on board. So, it would seem to me that the best wording to reflect this would be that the ships were carrying humanitarian aid, medical equipment, and construction materials. That would separate the humanitarian aid from those items Israel didn't consider to be humanitarian in nature (namely, the medical equipment and construction materials). Thoughts? ← George talk 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Although I would rather it was made clear that it is only Israelis interpretation that (for example) medical supplies are not humanitarian aid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That may very well make sense in the body of the article, but I don't think it's necessary in the lead. This wording should leave the definition sufficiently vague that we're not telling the reader whether the medical supplies were or were not part of the humanitarian aid. ← George talk 17:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a primary source and, given the apparent contradictions in it, I would actually suggest not to use it.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What contradictions? this seems to me to be just about acceptable (primary source's are not precluded, just that we should use them with care). I also yhave to ask why did you raise this source if you do not think its admisable>Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Now, let me get this straight. We're going to use this as a statement of the Israeli government's position, and the objection is that it was published by the Israeli government, and is thus a primary source?!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely against using this source. But there are better sources for the Israeli position, and we usually use secondary sources in preference to primary sources, if secondary sources are available. However, the source shows that a rather detailed account provided by an Israeli sources actually supports what most reliable secondary sources say about the cargo. The source is useful, even if it would not itself be used in the text itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As for the contradictions: the source lists "300 wheelchairs" and appears to argue that these are not humanitarian aid, because they are not new. However, the 300 new mobility scooters are not seen as humanitarian aid, for whatever reason. Then, after first arguing that the cargo is not humanitarian aid, the source says that "the humanitarian aid was scattered in the ships holds'". I can't make much sense of this, other than that the list itself is rather detailed.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Or that are saying that it was humanitarian aid, but was not food. In fact at mno point do they seem to say that this was not humanitarian aid, they just also refer to it as equipment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new wording “what the Israeli government has described as “humanitarian aid” and “equipment””[2] As this is what the Israeli government yhas described it as I cannot see any reasonable objection to it. If they say it contained humanitarian aid they are not likly to be propogandsing for Hamas are they?Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea. What about "aid, including humanitarian aid"?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I can go with that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We could write something like "...aid, including humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and construction equipment...", though it seems redundant and needlessly lengthy. ← George talk 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the equipment does not constitute humanitarian aid in the accepted sense is not that the writer is saying that the equipment is not humanitarian aid (just not humanitarian aid in what the writer calls the accepted sense). For me, the term humanitarian aid is an umbrella term for mixed aid supplied in forms such as medicine, medical equipment, water, clothing, shelter, food, machinery, agricultural goods, bedding and (because people always seems to send things like teddy bears) toys. I suspect that a trawl back through previous uses of the phrase human aid would show that there isn't a particularly well defined accepted sense and certainly not one as restrictive as the writer's (ie. basic foodstuffs, new and functional equipment, fresh medicines). Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about whether the cargoes are described as humanitarian aid, "humanitarian aid", material aid or just aid in the Lead, I just object to the risible argument that they should be described as aid because military material may be found among them eventually. Obviously, the organisers would have had to have been extremely stupid to not know that the ships were likely to be boarded (the only other outcomes likely would have been that they were disabled and towed away or turned back) and that the finding of any military material would have totally discredited the flotilla and given an excuse to stop further attempts to break the blockade.     ←   ZScarpia   01:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Jalapenos do exist can explain where above there was consensus to remove the term "humanitarian aid", or why he objects to the term "medical supplies", as in his latest edit here. ← George talk 23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Israeli government's viewpoint II

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Remarks by PM Netanyahu and Tony Blair, Quartet Envoy to the Middle East, 20 June 2010: Israel seeks to keep out of Gaza weapons and war-supporting materiel that Hamas uses to prepare and carry out terror and rocket attacks against Israel and its civilians. All other goods will be allowed into Gaza.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Our government's policy towards Gaza is clear. Israel seeks to keep out of Gaza weapons and war-supporting materiel that Hamas uses to prepare and carry out terror and rocket attacks against Israel and its civilians. All other goods will be allowed into Gaza. Gilad Shalit is now approaching four years in captivity. The international community should join Israel in strongly condemning Hamas for holding him captive. Now is the time for all of us, Israel and the international community, to redouble our efforts to secure Gilad Shalit's immediate release.

And a view from Hamas leader Dr Mahmud Zahar:

The Independent - Donald Macintyre - Iranian ships could join wave of flotillas to Gaza, says Hamas chief, 28 June 2010: Hamas leader Dr Mahmud Zahar blames Israel for reneging on a prisoner swap.

(More on Gilad Shalit)
(Turkey closes airspace to Israeli military flights)

... Hope that's of interest.     ←   ZScarpia   01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the chaps over at the JIDF are not impressed. Whoever used Ha'aretz as a reliable source was a very naughty boy! Hope they haven't come across Ran HaCohen's article The Flotilla in the Israeli Press; poor things would be having seizures. (Ah! ... so this is what really happened!)     ←   ZScarpia   23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


Continuing ...

The American Conservative - John J. Mearsheimer - Sinking Ship, The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself, 01 August 2010 issue.

Ha'aretz - Bernard-Henri Lévy - It’s time to stop demonizing Israel, 8 June 2010: The flood of hypocrisy and bad faith that seems to have just been waiting across the media worldwide for the Mavi Marmara is by no means acceptable.

Jonathan Cook - Israel's Palestinian Minority Thrown into a Maelstrom, 16 June 2010.

The Guardian - Ian Black - Turkey threatens to cut ties with Israel over Gaza flotilla, 5 July 2010.

Antiwar.com - Ian Deitch (AP News) - Israel keeping flotilla ships until inquiry ends, 7 July 2010.


Sources which have not so far been referred to in the article:

IDF News and Events - Eyewitness account by Naval soldier: "They shot at us the entire time", 31 May 2010.

ynetnews.com - Shmulik Hadad - Marmara ship docks in Ashdod; video shows attack on troops, 31 May 2010:

Ha'aretz - Liel Kyzer, Yair Ettinger and The Associated Press - "The ship turned into a lake of blood," says activist on Gaza flotilla, 31 May 2010.


    ←   ZScarpia   14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus inclusion RFC

When the Gaza flotilla raid article was created on 31 May following the event, a subsection was created to compare it with the journey of SS Exodus. This has then been subject to discussions and an edit war, and a compromise was made to include the event as a bullet point in the See Also section. However, this has also caused endless discussions and new edit wars, which have not been able to reach a consensus. --386-DX (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See this link for all earlier discussions. Basically the arguments were:
* Opposing inclusion: 1) Comparing the events with SS Exodus is editorial and therefore not encyclopedic. 2) It is POV since arguing that the events were similar implies that the raid was criminial/immoral/unjustified/etc. 3) The events are not similar since Exodus was carrying refugees to Mandate Palestine and the flotilla was carrying aid and activists to Gaza.
* Supporting inclusion: 1) The events were similar in nature since both ships were heading towards the same region, both were carrying civilians, both were trying to break a naval blockade, both were seized in international waters, both resulted in civilian deaths, both caused strong international reactions, and both eventually resulted in significant changes (i.e. UK losing Mandate Palestine, and 2010 easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip). 2) A compromise was already made to convert it from a subsection to a bullet item in See Also. 3) Numerous reliable sources around the world have made detailed comparisons between the two events in news reports and columns; including Haaretz, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Irish Times, etc. 4) Including it as a bullet point in WP:SEEALSO is not POV, since it only means that the listed article is related to the main one. We cannot deny that there were at least some similarities, and the aspects of the relation is for the reader to decide. --386-DX (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It probably makes little difference, but I wanted to point out that the Exodus 1947 didn't result in the UK losing the Palestine Mandate. The UK had passed the situation to the UN to solve and indicated that it did not want to continue with the Mandate before the Exodus sailed. What the Exodus affected was public opinion around the world, as well as the UN committee responsible for producing the proposal put before the UN General Assembly, who were in Palestine at the time, which probably affected the contents of the proposal and the support given it in the UN. Also, the passengers on the Exodus were certainly Holocaust survivors, but were they refugees? If they were trying to flee Europe because they feared further persecution, then the answer would be yes, but, obviously the war had been over for two years when the Exodus sailed (though there had been post-war pogroms in Soviet-controlled Poland).     ←   ZScarpia   23:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The comparison is not a reaction or response to anything, it is an analysis. --386-DX (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You can call it an analysis made by journalists, a comparison made by propagandists, or a journalistic response, I don't care. The main point is that the comparison is not accepted as valid by all, and therefore any reference to it should be attributed to whoever said it. Obviously as before, you will not be able to achieve consensus on suggestion 1 or 2, so I suggested a compromise. Please think about it with an open mind. Marokwitz (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No comparison is accepted as valid by all. As mentioned; this comparison was made by numerous high-profile news sources all around the world, including one in Israel. Many editors also support its inclusion. The inclusion does not mean that either action is being endorsed, or that the two events were totally identical in every way. A compromise was already made, and it was to remove the section and change it to a bullet item in the See Also list. It might be a bit ironic of you to advise me to keep an open mind while calling it a propaganda yourself. --386-DX (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please try not to misrepresent my words. I never said so. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) while calling it a propaganda yourself - uh, 386-DX, unless I'm missing something Marokwitz hasn't called it propaganda: You can call it an analysis made by journalists, a comparison made by propagandists, or a journalistic response, I don't care.
I'd be interested in seeing what third parties have to say. The proposal seems reasonable, though I continue to believe that inclusion in the "see also" section of this article would be useful in providing a perspective that transcends the usual Palestine/Israel perspectives. TFOWR 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see it makes much difference. There should be mention of this in the reactions article, it has received too much play to be ignored. As for the see also, I can't get very excited about it either way. Yes, I understand the emotional point, so did the organizers and newspeople I suspect, and I'm sure there's a point to tweak Israel about its creation story. That doesn't mean it should be included or not. Whatever editors decide is fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much my view, too. Weak support for inclusion, but equally I've removed it before now, too. TFOWR 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't love it the first time SS Exodus appeared in the article, seemed a bit of a stretch, but since then there has been significant RS linking of the two incidents. Weak support for a link in See Also, the threshold for inclusion hinges on how lean or bloated the See Also list becomes. RomaC (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the double values being shown by some commentators, the Gaza Flotilla being sneered at as propaganda or publicity stunt while presenting the SS Exodus 1947 as being solely about transporting desperate Holocaust survivors to the safety of Palestine and nothing to do with newspaper column inches, is remarkable.     ←   ZScarpia   16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please concentrate on the content, not the commentators. It sounds to me like many editors are open to your position.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. I'll try to curb my desire to share irrelevant opinions in future.     ←   ZScarpia   16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is that it is OK for it to be mentioned that comparisons are being made to the SS Exodus 1947. A problem, though, is that none of the commentaries making the comparison (at least the ones that I have read, anyway) give anything close to a neutral or error-free and factual version of what happened in 1947. If any editor wants to include a comparison of the events, which sources are they going to use? And where should the comparison end? A very unfavourable comparison for the boarding of the Mavi Marmara can be made. Both boardings were carried out in international waters, but the Flotilla ships were 70 miles from the coast and at least one of the ships was heading west whereas the Exodus (if my memory serves correctly) was about 20 miles of the coast (a coast and surrounding waters that the British, unlike the Israelis, actually had legal authority over). There were three fatalities out of 4500 people on the Exodus (a teenager was shot in the face at close range, the mate of the ship died after being hit on the head, another passenger died after being shot in the stomach); on the Mavi Marmara, nine passengers (most of whom were shot multiple times) were killed out of a total number on the ship of about 500. Only the officers who boarded the Exodus carried firearms (pistols). Three British sailors were thrown into the sea. Most of the sailors who boarded (and even some of those who didn't) needed medical treatment afterwards. According to the historian Nicholas Bethell, the captain of the Exodus considered dangling British sailors over the side as fenders. The captain of the Mavi Marmara told people not to resist. A number of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara used bars and sticks to beat the Israeli commandos. On the Exodus, scaffolding poles and tins of food were used. In addition, a steam pipe had been rigged up and fuel oil was poured onto the deck of one of the destroyers and an attempt made to light it.     ←   ZScarpia   18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a very good argument, after all, those of the opposite opinion can come up with an exactly opposite comparison, no doubt touching on the conditions of the Exodus passengers before they boarded the vessel and their shared experience of some great act of mass murder or something like that anyway. Whatever. Let's find where we have common ground and seek to generate a version we can all live with.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
My argument was about avoiding getting into a comparison. As I see it there is a problem because, in the articles I've seen where a comparison is made, none of them are neutral and there are serious errors of fact (meaning that their reliability is not good). Also, I pointed out that, for anyone supporting a comparison, it might not actually work out the way they're expecting.     ←   ZScarpia   20:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm happy for it to be mentioned that comparisons have been made to what happened to the Exodus and support Marokwitz's suggestion. What worries me is that the reliability of a lot of the commentary making the comparison that I've seen is not good and so, in my opinion, doesn't bear describing in much detail if any.     ←   ZScarpia   23:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe RomaC's compromise was ever agreed upon, as the debate just raged on for weeks unabated, and still continues.
I Strongly Oppose Inclusion Here It's blatantly POV to imply a similarity, when no real connection between the two events exists.
But I Support inclusion on reactions page No matter how POV it is, these analogies were part of the reaction, so it does merit an inclusion over there. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like Marokwitz's idea of putting it in the main reactions article (not the reactions subsection of this one). The event itself is unrelated to the boarding of the Mavi Marmara, but the coverage in RS does make it newsworthy as a reaction. "Some news organizations have compared it to the events on the SS Exodus in 1947 ..." or something like that Zuchinni one (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • There are many different ways that the events could be compared, and we can argue all day about which comparisons make more sense, but nobody argues that the events are totally and utterly dissimilar. That's why I believe that discluding it would be unfair. That's why I also think it should be included simply as a bullet item in the See Also list without further subjective analysis of the individual similarities. --386-DX (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have to weigh in in favor of inclusion, and I would go so far as to say a sentence in the article (along the lines of Zuchinni One's comment) is more appropriate than just a bullet in the see also section. In many, if not most, of the editorials covering the Gaza flotilla raid some mention was made of the SS Exodus (and also occasionally the USS Liberty), and that makes it a notable comparison whether it's a valid one or not in any editor's opinion. siafu (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in two minds. Part of me says exclude as it has nothing to do with it. But if RS have made the comparision then so can we. So on blance I would exclude if if policy did not allow its inclusion, but it does, so we keep it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"It has nothing to do with it" is a POV, just as the analysis that says the two are related is POV. Certainly, there are plenty of superficial similarities in that they both involve boats headed to the same region stopped by armed soldiers in the same area of the ocean and both purporting to be humanitarian in nature, which is to say that it's not simply ridiculous to draw an analogy. I think much of this discussion seems to be hampered by the belief that reporting a POV, or something that has been said by others, is somehow an endorsement of its validity. It is not, and the fact that this analogy has been drawn by many quite notable commentators (cited above by others) is all that is needed to justify its mention in the article. siafu (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Siafu, reporting on something that has been said is not necessarily an endorsement. However, including it in "see also" does violate NPOV because it does give our editorial rubber stamp that we believe there is a connection between these two events. Marokwitz's proposal is solid. We should report that these comparisons have been made, but it doesn't belong in the very short "responses" section of this article. It belongs in the "responses" article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You could note that I suggested a mention in a sentence in the article, not as a bullet in the see also. More importantly, however, you are incorrect in asserting that it puts our editorial rubber stamp on the connection; the only thing receiving the editorial "rubber stamp" is the fact that it has been suggested by notable commentators. This latter happens to be true, so it should be uncontroversial to include it. siafu (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Including something in the See Also is not an endorsement, it only means that the article is related. See WP:SEEALSO. The analysis of the political connections between the two events would be editorial; but the similarities themselves, as repeatedly detailed above, are material. Nobody denies that both journeys were being made towards the same region, with passengers trying to break a naval blockade, had deadly interventions, which resulted in strong reactions, and subsequent significant changes. The presence of these multiple solid similarities alone should be enough to include it in See Also. The fact that detailed comparisons between the two events were made by RS all around the world only proves the existence of similarities even further. My main reason to include it there is not to point out that the events were compared by some people, it is because the two events indeed do have lots of common points. --386-DX (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Then maybe it should go into the see also section of the reactions article instead of this one, because everyone seems to agree that the events are dissimilar and that the only reason for inclusion is the reactions from some RS that mentioned it. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any agreement at all on the similarity or dissimilarity of the events, and more importantly, our opinions on that matter are simply irrelevant. The commentary made by major news services making this connection is the source of its notable; its sheer prominence merits its inclusion in this article. siafu (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
These were different events which took place at different times. There are of course differences between them. There are always differences between any two events. Listing the article in See Also would not mean that they are the same in nature every way one can think of. Worldwide RS coverage proves that there are some significant similarities. What those are specifically is not important for the purpose of this discussion. In addition, nobody disputes at least the factual common points I listed above. For what it's worth, I would also have no problems with the inclusion of SS Struma or Karina A Affair on the same list. --386-DX (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The opposer's argue that making the link is not useful to the reader without the context of the comparison being made, and implies that Wikipedia editorially endorses the comparison. My proposal above keeps the link, and also explains the comparison in more depth according to the reliable sources - we can have a full paragraph about that. This is more prominent and gives due weight to the prominence of the comparisons that were made by journalists and other responders, as well as giving opportunity to describe the criticism of the comparison, without editorially endorsing any of them. It is much more useful to the reader that way, and is policy compliant. I really do not understand why you are so much against it. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You likely don't understand why I am "so much against it" because I am not, in fact, so much against it. I am simply offering my opinion, which is that because the See Also section presents without qualification, it would be more useful to include it in the responses section (and in more depth in the responses article) because it is so prominent and this allows some minor qualification on the point here in this article so as to avoid the appearance of endorsement or rejection. An additional rationale for this is the fact that casual reader is not necessarily likely to follow the link to the responses article, but can this way still be presented with an NPOV description. That's it. I'm also not willing to joining 386-DX or Zuchinni one in either of their competing claims because both seem to think that the actual validity of the comparison, one way or the other, is what should inform our decision on inclusion. As I have said before, this is irrelevant-- I do even have my own opinion on this matter which I'm choosing to keep to myself because wikipedia is not a forum-- and the prominence (i.e., notability) of the RS's which have made this comparison is the important factor in determining inclusion versus omission. siafu (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The similarity and the RS coverages/analyses of the similarity are two different things. If you want to mention the RS coverages, you can surely do that in the Reactions article. I am against removing it from See Also because the reason for listing it there is not to mention that some news sources compared the two events. It is to point out that the two events were indeed similar; i.e. both were passenger ships heading towards Palestine to break a naval blockade and were stopped in international waters with deadly force resulting in strong international criticism and significant political changes. Nobody here, including you, denies these similarities. Removing it would therefore be unfair. Your allegation that merely listing Exodus in See Also would be a political endorsement is baseless, and it is nothing more than your opinion. --386-DX (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This is all opinion. The reason it could be interpreted as an endorsement is because it would be presented in a purely unqualified way: the reader would see nothing but a link to SS Exodus with no indication of why that link is there. If it's in the prose, some qualification can be made. You are also unaware of what my personal opinion is, so leave that out please. siafu (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone list the sources please? Once we know what the sources are, we can come to a consensus about their reliability and whether their contents are worth detailing in the article.     ←   ZScarpia   23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few: Haaretz BBC The Guardian Irish Times New York Times Sydney Morning Herald The News International --386-DX (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
How is this still dragging on and why are certain editors so adamant about its inclusion? Simple fix is putting it in the prose then there doesn't have to be any dispute.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
SS Exodus used to have its own section, which was then moved to the lead, which was then moved to See Also. I believe that is for the best since putting it in the prose would make it editorial depending on how it is phrased. Listing it in See Also is objective since it leaves the comparisons up to the reader. --386-DX (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Not surprised. Its own section and the lead are both more weight than it deserves. Including it in the see also is just as editorial but at least in the reactions or another section it can be explained why it was compared.Cptnono (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite the contrary. Explaining how they are similar and not similar would be purely editorial. Listing it in the See Also on the other hand, would not put any kind of comparison over another. --386-DX (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons explained a couple weeks ago. If sources are comparing any of those then explain it in the reactions section or at the reactions article.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't see how adding additional unexplained links to unrelated events would be helpful to resolve the policy based objections mentioned earlier. 1 - EDITORIAL: Making unexplained connections to events that are not directly related to the raid is editorializing. If it has been compared by reliable sources, explain the comparison in prose. 2- NPOV: The flotilla supporters strongly object to comparing the flotilla to Karine A which was a vessel carrying tons of rockets, bombs and other contraband. And Israel supporters will likewise object to comparing the flotilla to Struma, which is a horrifying story, Struma was an immigrant ship sunk by a soviet torpedo, with all 1,000 or so civilians on board killed, after being towed to mid-sea by the Turkish, with an inoperable engine. Controversial topics should be handled with extra care. Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Any incident which reliable sources related to this one should be considered for inclusion in the reactions article, if compared in enough sources to satisfy WP:UNDUE. Comparing an event to an unrelated event is one way to react to the event. There seems to be pretty good support for Marokwitz's suggestion above to include mention of any cases like this in the prose of the reactions article (properly referenced, of course), and I would support Marokwitz's proposal. ← George talk 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


A critique of the sources provided by 386-DX on July 6:

  • Haaretz: An article by Yossi Melman which briefly mentions the Exodus 1947, claiming that Hamas has the same motivations for violently breaking the blockade of Gaza as the Jewish leaders had in breaking the British blockade in 1947. Melman says that the Israelis should not have boarded the Marmara, causing a violent confrontation, but simply disabled it or acted in the way they did in several incidents in the past, citing the sabotaging of The Return and an incident during Olmert's premiership when a lone ship was allowed through to Gaza. It's interesting that Melman states as a fact that the Israelis sent Mossad agents and Naval commandos to Cyprus to sabotage The Return. As far as I know, Israel has never acknowledged doing so and it has never been proved that they did (see the Sabotage section of the current version of the article). It's also interesting that Melman should state as a fact that Hamas was behind the flotilla. In relation to the Exodus 1947 Melman says that the British Mandate authorities had imposed a blockade on the shores of the land of Israel. It would be good to know what Melman means by the land of Israel (perhaps Eretz Israel?) and why he didn't just use a term like Mandate Palestine, a more precise term for the territory which the British were actually governing; obviously the State of Israel didn't exist at the time.
  • BBC: Paul Reynolds mentions the Exodus 1947 briefly at the end of an article asking questions about why the boarding of the Mavi Marmara resulted in deaths. He says that the Israelis (understandably) totally underestimated the resistance that the boarding would be met by and claims that the British did the same in 1947. Anybody who knows anything about the Exodus 1947 would know that that is a pretty silly claim to make. Firstly, violent resistance had been met on previous boardings. Secondly, the British boarding teams had trained beforehand to meet a violent confrontation on the Exodus 1947. Thirdly, it could be readily seen that the Exodus had been prepared beforehand to resist a boarding. Reynolds' statement that the Exodus 1947 boarding did much to ... increase support for a Jewish state is highly justified, though.
  • The Guardian: A comment piece, whose thesis is that Israel's position on blockading a whole people is not sustainable, by Richard Irvine in which the Exodus 1947 features strongly. There is an error in the second sentence. Irvine says that the Royal Navy stopped, then boarded, the Exodus 1947; in fact the boarding was done while the Exodus 1947 was zig-zagging at high speed. There is an ambiguity in the second paragraph which could be read as stating that three deaths were caused as the passengers were removed from the Exodus 1947. In the penultimate paragraph, the death-toll on the Mavi Marmara is overestimated.
  • Irish Times: Fintan O'Toole's thesis is that, because of the Exodus 1947, Israel should have been alive to the disastrous publicity that resulted from storming the Mavi Marmara. In describing the Exodus 1947 story, he has adopted the Haganah version. Firstly, he says that the British destroyers rammed the Exodus, something that there were several good reasons that they wouldn't have done. Firstly, the Exodus had a six inch wide iron-coated rubbing strake running right round her six feet above the waterline which would have severely damaged the sides of lightly-built destroyers. Secondly, the Exodus had no internal subdivisions, so would probably have sunk very rapidly if rammed or even caused to heel over. All the destroyer captains had been warned to avoid causing such an accident to happen. At one stage there was an accidental collision. The Exodus, which was zig-zagging at high speed, slowed quickly when one of the destroyers was coming alongside, causing a boarding gantry to become entangled. In manoeuvring to disentangle the gantry the destroyer's bows swung round and hit the Exodus. O'Toole says that the Royal Navy almost certainly lied when it claimed that some of the crew of the Exodus were armed (presumably he means with guns, though he doesn't make that clear). He also says that the Navy made false claims in order to justify the three deaths caused. The three deaths were that of the mate, who was clubbed on the head when he refused to give up the wheel, a fifteen-year-old, who was shot in the face (he was hiding behind a lifeboat at the time), and a passenger who bled to death after being shot in the stomach. The reason given for shooting the fifteen-year-old (at point blank range) was that he was holding an axe. Presumably, the false claim charge relates to the latter two. In neither case does he explain the reasons behind his statement. My best guess is that he was simply repeating what he read in other accounts which believed the Haganah version. The US press at the time, naturally, put great faith in the statements of the American crew members, especially secret Haganah member and Methodist minister John Grauel, that there had been no firearms on board the Exodus. Opposed to that, British historian Nicholas Bethell wrote that an American crewman fired a rifle threw a hole which had been hacked in the roof of the British-occupied wheelhouse. He didn't explain how he knew that it was an American seaman who was involved. From the account, it appears that Grauel was in his cabin at the time and therefore not a witness to what was happening on deck. It is one of the interesting common features that has not be commented on. The Israeli commandos also said that they were fired on and have been widely disbelieved.
  • New York Times: A number of comparisons are made, the main and most explicit ones being that in both cases the passengers were filmed leaving the ships in a poor condition and that, afterwards, there was a controversy over whether the deaths were justified. In the third paragraph the article says that the Royal Navy was enforcing a ban on Jewish immigration. There wasn't a ban on Jewish immigration. There was a restriction in the numbers of permits issued. To force a change, of course, the Haganah and Irgun mounted campaigns of illegal immigration, the ships of which the Navy was trying to intercept. In the passage quoted from Margalit Fox, there are a number of errors. Again, it is, at the very least, misleading to say that the destroyers rammed the Exodus. The sailors who boarded did so from special gantries which were mounted high up in the destroyers. The sailors on the deck of the destroyers were not trying to board the Exodus but to prevent passengers on the Exodus setting fire to fuel oil which had been sprayed there. The Exodus was not towed to Haifa, but was taken there under its own steam, steered by a member of the Exodus's crew. The article links to one from 1947 which apparently reported John Grauel's claims that the passengers' weapons were potatoes and canned food. Sounds as though he forgot to mention the steam pipe, fuel oil, scaffolding poles, axe and anything else that came to hand.
  • Sydney Morning Herald: I can't see any errors here except that it implies that the Royal Navy stopped the Exodus before boarding it.
  • The News International: The Exodus is mentioned briefly. I think that there is one error: international outrage did not force the British to relinquish its Mandate; it had already indicated to the UN that it wanted to withdraw from the Mandate. The UN sent the UNSCOP committee to Palestine in order to produce recommendations for what should be done with the territory. The Exodus was timed to coincide with the presence of the UNSCOP committee.

I'll leave editors to form their own opinions about the articles' reliability and how important the errors are. I would say that the articles do not make all the comparisons between the Exodus and Flotilla incidents that have been listed above and therefore cannot be used as sources to justify everything in the list.     ←   ZScarpia   00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you took the time to write the comment above with all those personal notes and claims. This is not a place to review the cited articles or debate the politics. See WP:FORUM. As explained above; the reason those articles were mentioned was to point out the notability and relevance of the connection. --386-DX (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit

There was a pretty large edit recently that added a lot of POV and where the only text in the comments section was "comments". There were no sources added, but a lot of incorrect information was inserted.

Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=372826625&oldid=372524060

I am reverting this edit because of the POV and inaccuracies introduced. Please comment here. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If we just can go through each of the edits separately, one by one. The Israel categorically refused to allow international independent inquiry commission. Israel since the beginning of the incident rejected any calls for possible int. commission, without discussing such calls in principle, so here where word categorically comes from. But if there is a need for a source, no problem.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

Guys, let's not present Israeli military claims as the truth, like it was done in the "boarding" chapter: it said Israeli military entered the ship with "paintball guns"; however, if you actually read the source, you will not that it is the Israeli military who says this, yet, this attribution was missing. To be honest, to me "paintball guns" sounds more like a cynical joke by the Israeli military than reality. Lesswealth (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Joke or no, sourced to the IDF or not, was it factual (and verifiable from reliable sources other than the IDF) - or is this a proven IDF fabrication? If it's a proven fabrication sourced to the IDF, then yes, we shouldn't consider them reliable sources. On the other hand, if the initial force was armed with paint-ball guns, as absurd as that sounds, then it's an indication that the IDF is pretty reliable, if not ridiculous. Rklawton (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually the paintball guns were pretty much confirmed by all the RS and POV publications on both sides of the issue. The question is not whether or not they had paintball guns, but what else they used, how soon they started to use deadly force, and whether or not the passengers resisted with deadly force of their own. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Less than lethal weapons have been verified by the activists and press. We can even verify it ourselves in the images (although it is OR). This along with the fighting back with more than fists by the activists have been confirmed by both sides and independent media. Editors need to stop disregarding that since just because they don't like it.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Many activists testimonies (including those of numerous international passengers) state that Israel was using plastic bullets and possibly live ammo even before boarding the ships. In addition to paintball guns; tasers, dogs, plastic bullets were used as well. The soldiers also had sidearms with real bullets. Autopsy reports confirm that some people were shot from directly above their heads. In light of all these; saying that "the soldiers boarded the ships with paintball guns" would be very much POV. --386-DX (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Who cares where they were shot from? Fine, attribute it and make it clear if that is your primary concern. "Reports from activists said that commandos opened fire before boarding. Israel says that light resistance was expected and boarded with non-lethal weapons. They used their sidearms after being attacked by passengers wielding iron bars, knives and other makeshift weapons." This has all been sourced but keeps on being removed for whatever reason. And the last line doesn't need to be attributed since it has been confirmed by all parties and there were dead bodies.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert Lesswealth's edit there seems to be consensus here and its been a few days. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the text since the source given at the end of the line clearly said that this view is the opinion of the Israeli military. Unless someone points out another, non-Isreali source, which says that they had paintball guns, I'm keeping to my opinion. Lesswealth (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Lesswealth, take a look at the archives and at the sources. The use of paintball guns is undisputed. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"Israel ... boarded with non-lethal weapons. They used their sidearms after being attacked by passengers wielding iron bars, knives and other makeshift weapons." Saying commandos "boarded with non-lethal weapons" and marginalizing the guns which fired the bullets that killed and injured scores is an attempt to paint events in the hues of hasbara. Some sources say the commandos boarded with illustrated hit lists, shall we include that? RomaC TALK 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Three of the dead Turkish men had martyrdom photos

During the funeral in Turkey , which was recorded by news outlets, an broadcasted in USA, at least 3 of the dead Turkish men had martyrdom photos pasted to the front of their coffins that had been taken while they were living. This clearly illustrates that they had bad intentions when arriving in Gaza. Peace activists don't make martyrdom pictures. The photos show the men wearing terrorist scarves and colors of Hamas. Why aren't these pictures posted here? What happened to the newspaper interviews of the 3 men in which they expressed their wishes to die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.249.226.109 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

well there is a perfect explanation as to why these pictures are not shown, and other useful information not mentioned. It's because this article is clearly controlled by an anti-Israeli majority (a quick read through the discussion will prove that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IDF "poison captive with arsenic" claim

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=9142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.178.19 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

New information

I have no expertise in this, I don't know why I am suggesting things I read so please don't see this as an attack but because the Israeli point of view is clearly backed by video proof perhaps it should be treated a little bit more evenly? I also think this page is far too long, and I also found this which is why I read the Wikipedia Article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/1/Gaza-Freedom-Flotilla-aid-included-expired/

Perhaps that should be added in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel's video includes only a minute of the event, without showing what happened before or after the video was shot. Israel also confiscated all images and videos of the event except the very few activists managed to smuggle. Even if it were not so, that is no reason to prefer the Israeli version of the events. The page is not long in relevance to the context and related information of the event. This was already discussed before. --386-DX (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
One female journalist smuggled out a video she took. Do we have that in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See alsos

Not really related. It is related in the sense that it is part of the overall conflict but that would lead to a whole long see also section when something like Israeli-Palestinian conflict is already a template at the bottom.
Same as above
Same as above but this is more related and the Cargo section actually discusses it. Propose adding a wikilink to the prose up there.

Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else reverted which is fine by me but I still believe Effects of the Gaza War could be wikilinked in the cargo section.Cptnono (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict is a 3rd party view for the conflict.
That is the recent background. Some articles are missing, so I posted closest ones I could. Kasaalan (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SAMS report

WP:NOTAFORUM. Complain to your local politician. What the US government spends money on has no relevance to Gaza flotilla raid.

In 2001, the Washington Times ran a story about a 68 page research paper issued by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). The research was compiled by 60 US Army officers as an attempt to predict the possible outcomes of deploying a US force to maintain peace between the Israel and Palestinians. Here's what SAMS had to say about the Israeli military machine: 

   "a 500 pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission"

Of Israel's Mossad, the officers issued this warning: 

   "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian Arab act." (emphasis added)

Why does the US, which is trillions of dollars in debt, give away billons of taxpayer dollars to a foreign government whose military violates international laws and whose Mossad is capable of murdering US troops in order to frame Arabs? Have we lost our minds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.178.19 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree My thoughts exactly. Collapsing. TFOWR 02:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.161.26 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

...hence the commentary Why does the US, which is trillions of dollars in debt, give away billons of taxpayer dollars to a foreign government...?, I presume? TFOWR 14:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Several" activists

Made an edit to remove weaselly "several" activists on board said that the IDF opened fire on the ship before boarding. because the sources do not say "several" activists, one says "hundreds" and others don't qualify. Not shocked that it was summarily reverted to reinsert "several" (and marginalize the activists' account of events). Meanwhile we have in the previous sentence "Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered" with no similar qualification on the number of commandos who said this. Why qualify activists and not commandos? RomaC TALK 15:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is indeed a problem across the project. If it is being used to summarize, I see no great problem. If it is being used to try to impart a POV (for example "Most Americans" when the poll was 53-47 percent of a 300 person smaple) is a bit more dicey. I think we do the best we can here and if there is a problem, seek alternative language. Fortunately, the ruckus here seems to be calming down.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. On this phrasing, I wonder what some editors here would say if I edited in "some" Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered? The general "soldiers said X" and "activists said Y" seems to reflect both sides while avoiding a selective qualification that might introduce a POV. RomaC TALK 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would do it in both cases, or neither. If you leave it for one, there may be an implication there that carries POV. Make sure you don't imply that this is a minority view among either group, please. Perhaps one way is to say "several soldiers have stated" rather than "several soldiers stated".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the thing is that the three cited sources don't say "several activists/soldiers" for either side's version of events, neither do they say "all activists/soldiers." So editing in "several" as a qualification on one side only did seem a POV move. I support leaving out such weaselly qualifications. Another option is using what the source says: "Hundreds of activists from the Free Gaza aid Flotilla have testified that they came under attack by Israeli soldiers before their feet even touched the deck." In any case, "several" should go, but as I mentioned initially, when I removed that qualification an editor replaced it right away. RomaC TALK 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would be very interested in knowing what court they "testified" in. However, I agree, ditch the weaselly qualifiers, and make sure that the verbs you use for what the various positions are do not carry more of a connotation of belief in one case than in the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Although American Heritage also defines "testify" as "To make a statement based on personal knowledge", ie. not necessarily to or before a court, I agree the word carries that connotation and we should leave it out and also leave out the selective and unsupported "several". Also agree that both sides' action verbs should be "said" as in the version that I'd edited, which only removed "several" per the above. Here's the diff could you consider doing the revert? I'm thinking to stick to Talk pages for awhile. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of the people on the ship below deck when the Israelis boarded? Zuchinni one (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct but that's original research. Let's consider how "several/some" qualifications might affect the lead alone if uniformly applied:

  • Activists aboard the flotilla's largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces --> Some activists aboard the flotilla's largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with some Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces"
  • Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered --> Some Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered.
  • Et cetera

Shall we do the above edits? The fact is that "several activists" does not appear in any of the cited sources. However, if we want a qualification from a source, that would be "hundreds". Shall we use the supported "hundreds of activists" or would we be better to remove the unsupported "several activists" and not selectively qualify? Which do you prefer? RomaC TALK 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If anything it is "many" not several. "Free Gaza Movement lawyer Iyad Habiballah told Al Jazeera news that hundreds of the freed activists testified commandos began shooting as they absailed down ropes from helicopters."[28] I expect other sources to contradict it (Free Gaza is good at PR) but unless these are provided "several" is not enough.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's not "many" (OR) but "hundreds" per the source. Why don't you make the change, Cpt? RomaC TALK 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that a quote of 'hundreds' from one source which is known to have a strong POV fits the WP:NPOV standard. There is no evidence that 'hundreds' of people could even have been eyewitnesses above deck. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Where's the source that says "several"? RomaC TALK 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Where did I ever support using 'several'? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Several" is currently in the article, I took it out and was summarily reverted. So, what do you support? And what is the "source which is known to have a strong POV", I don't understand that. RomaC TALK 02:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
At least a few argued that, so some activists would be NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the unsupported "several", and per Wehwalt simply use the same style for both, ie "activists said X" and "soldiers said Y". Anyone opposed please provide a policy-based reason. RomaC TALK 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
User:AgadaUrbanit has reverted once again [29], refusing to participate on Talk, this with the encouragement of User:Cptnono [30]. RomaC TALK 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated tangent

The word "Terrorist" was coined by the British media in 1947 in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.161.26 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The British media are certainly adept at inventing things, but Terrorism, citing Martha Crenshaw's Terrorism in Context, suggests the term dates back to 1869. TFOWR 23:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamas "rant"

This recently reverted[31] edit introduces something that is very related and assists the reader in understanding the topic. It might be possible to tone down but overall should be mentioned. Is sourced just fine.Cptnono (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's such a helpful addition have your boy Agada come here to propose and discuss it, he's made 30 hasbara edits to the article in the last two weeks without dropping by Talk once. RomaC TALK 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I brought it to talk so if you have reason for its removal feel free to discuss it.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well complaining about Agada (our interaction has not been much so he isn't my slave or buddy although he does seem like a decent dude) and leaving snide remarks on my talk page without discussing the issue is enough for me to feel comfortable reverting.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course you feel comfortable, more and more editors feel the proper descriptors are "Israeli government" on the east of the wall, and "Islamist militants Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and considered a terrorist organization by the United States etc." on the west side of the wall sorry, "peace fence". Partisan activity in this topic area is becoming even more extreme, concerted and loathsome. RomaC TALK 02:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You are getting a little off topic. Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In typical fashion, Nableezy reverted even though it could have easily been discussed here more. There is an ongoing discussion but he used an edit summary "pov drivel, define "destruction of Israel" and this point is made multiple times in the article". We don't need to define it. Israel has defended itself by relying on that argument. We are simply acknowledging their claimed reasoning. We could give half their claimed reasoning if that would be less POV drivel.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sherlock, the "pov drivel" is the "committed to the destruction of Israel". I was not saying to define "destruction of Israel" in the text, I was saying that it is used in such a broad fashion that it is a meaningless phrase. The argument Israel has relied on is that it needs to stop weapons from reaching Hamas. And that point is in fact made in several places in the article. And if you recall, you re-reverted a "bold" addition when it could have easily been discussed here more. There was an ongoing discussion and you choose to re-revert because an editor left a supposedly "snide" remark on your talk page. Bye. nableezy - 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the third time you have referred to me as "Sherlock". Don't do that anymore. And RomaC refused to talk about the issue so I'm not going to feel bad for reverting.
Would "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop vessels from travelling to Gaza since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas"[32] be acceptable? Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No, because that is a defense of the blockade, not the "raid". That goes in the background section, which it already is in. And I call you Sherlock because you seem to have an incredible knack for going through my contributions. But as you wish. nableezy - 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The source words it as if it is the defense for the raid. Is the source not correct or is it misleading? Blockade or this specific flotilla, shouldn't it be mentioned with a single line in the lead if it is discussed in detail throughout the article? WP:LEAD and proper summary. I really don't see how dropping the destruction bit would not be a good fix.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The defense of the raid boils down to the claim that it was needed to enforce the blockade. The defense for the blockade is that it is needed to prevent arms from reaching Hamas. The source is conflating these two things. nableezy - 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) If it worded correctly then yes, the Israeli defense of the blockade could be mentioned in the lead. Also, be careful with directly copying material from a non-free use source. The sentences used were directly copied from the source, which is small enough that copying these two sentences word for word could arguably be construed as a copyvio, and if not it was straightforward plagiarism. nableezy - 03:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
A single line "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop vessels from travelling to Gaza since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas" should be OK copyright wise. Assuming that is correct, is placement in the section the next hurdle? The blockade is mentioned in the first and second paragraphs so somewhere next to or added to those lines looks like a possibility.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that single line would probably be okay as far as copyright goes, but what you re-added to the article was more than that. But to the point, that is not worded accurately. Israel has defended itself for what with that logic? Where it was placed implies that this is a defense of the actual raid, not the blockade. After a mention of the blockade a clause could be inserted saying ", which Israel has defended as necessary to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas". A better source for that would be this which is not as confused as the AFP is in this case. nableezy - 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to defend the original inclusion by the other editor since we have already gone over that. If that line is more appropriate in an already existing line discussing the blockade then so be it. Which one though?Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It is hardly constructive that the above editor, after admonishing Nableezy for not participating on Talk, goes to the other editor's Talk page to encourage him to continue making contentious edits without participating on Talk. RomaC TALK 01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop Gaza-bound vessels since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas, an Islamist movement committed to the destruction of Israel which controls Gaza Strip.[3]" "an Islamist movement committed to the destruction of Israel which controls Gaza Strip" part might or might not be unnecessary, but "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop Gaza-bound vessels since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas" part is useful. On the other hand expansion of Israeli settlements, House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Effects of the Gaza War are also closely related to the background of the conflict. So adding as see also. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That edit was questionable but we are discussing how to adress the line and not the see alsos so this does not need to be sidetracked. The carrying of weapons bit was even discussed a few weeks ago (too many archives!). I think I have a solution per the above chit chatting but need to do some tinkering before it is ready to go up. Any other thoughts on it would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes Kasaalan, agreed we don't want to preface every mention of Gaza and its government with the stock Israeli "Islamists dedicated to the destruction of Israel" scare phrasing. That's not the project's job.
As for weapons, the information on Israeli concerns about weapons is right there at the top of the background section, because it is one reason why Israel says it is blockading the Gaza Strip. And note the word "weapons" appears 20 times in the article, 16 times in reference to either the flotilla passengers or Hamas or Gazans: the point has been hammered home. This is an article about an Israeli raid on a ship, that killed or injured dozens, why does all the talk about weapons relate to those who got shot? That's not an objective description of the event that's pushing the Israeli excuse/justification narrative. RomaC TALK 01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have already seen the value in dropping the destruction part. But even Nableezy agrees that a line about checking for weapons is appropriate especially if it is discussed so much in the actual prose. The lead is supposed to be a proper summary so lets properly summarize it.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
If summarizing article content is the intent then we should add to the lead not only background on Israeli's reasons for storming the ship (check for weapons) but also background on Free Gaza's reasons for sailing the ship (ease humanitarian crisis). That would be balanced. As for article content, I notice that the 400 words of background overwhelmingly present the Israeli perspective, with only one sentence explaining why Free Gaza did what they did. Maybe we should address this before summarizing something so lopsided. RomaC TALK 02:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I would rather not be deterred from fixing something another editor tried to add but was removed for reasoning I disagreed with. I would be more than happy to discuss your proposal in another section though.Cptnono (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why contributors do make a fuss about pesky material. AFP, while masquerading as secondary reliable source, is actually controlled by hasbara and NO - we don't need to to see a summary of Israeli POV in the lede at all!. ZOMG! Anyway thank you, nableezy, for providing additional reliables source talking also about Israeli POV on weapon import into Gaza Strip prevention and Hamas<->Israel conflict framework Not sure about WP:OR about raid vs. naval-blockade justification though. So basically we could use LATimes as second ref. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Agada, I am only going to spend the time writing this out once, so please read it carefully. Reliable sources on occasion make mistakes, particularly news wire services such as AFP or AP that try to cover everything in the world. This should be a simple point to understand, saying that Israel needs to prevent arms from reaching Hamas is a defense of the blockade, not the raid. That reasoning is the defense for stopping the ship, but it does not in any way provide a reason for dropping armed commandos on this boat. We are not obligated to include obvious errors made by normally reliable sources. The minimum threshold for content to be included is that it is verifiable to a reliable source, that does not mean that all content verifiable to a reliable source should be included. I provided the LATimes ref saying that this reasoning is a defense of the blockade itself, so saying that this was a defense of the blockade is by definition not OR. And finally, you need to understand that copying and pasting from a source is not acceptable here. It is at the very least plagiarism and at worst a copyright violation. Please dont do that again. Other people should not be required to fix your mistakes. nableezy - 16:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It's nice to see you back and kicking, nableezy ;) No doubt whatsoever, Wikipedia would not be the same without your watch list. I especially appreciate your reviews and see myself as your humble student in the area of Wikirules. Frankly other contributors reviews generally, but again yours especially, are my main motivation for contributing to WP.
My line of thought is that your expression of distinction "soldiers on board" vs. "naval blockade" is not supported by any source. We just could say Israel stops and inspects Gaza-bound marine vessels by its military force, but I'm afraid it might be considered WP:OR ;) Though really, I don't want to sidetrack there, that's out of point.
On the point of discussion, no argument, event secondary reliable sources publish garbage from time to time. However given two instances of secondary reliable sources reach separately the same conclusion, we gain due tertiary source quality which is good for Wikipedia. Both sources also touch uncompromising Hamas attitude towards Israel, we also neutrally should attribute it as Israeli POV. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Agada, the LA Times specifically says that line is a defense of the blockade. It is not the same conclusion, the LA Times ref says Israeli officials defend the naval blockade of Gaza as a way to prevent the Hamas movement, which rules the coastal strip and doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, from importing weapons. This is so basic that I dont understand why there is an argument. Israeli officials have multiple times made this argument. The argument for the raid is to enforce the blockade. We should not be conflating these two things. nableezy - 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Mostly agree, cyclic graph kind of transitive reasoning. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a simple question:are there elected governments in Gaza and Israel? RomaC TALK 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli-hospitals
  2. ^ http://miami.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/main/document.asp?documentid=180870,
  3. ^ Israeli army delays results of Gaza flotilla probe
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_13&oldid=1235305142"