Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

Dogan's citizenship

Re recent edits changing Dogan's citizenship, sources seem to differ -- some say "American" and some "Turkish-American" dual citizenship. This source addresses the distinction: "The ninth victim was an American teenager, 19-year-old Furkan Dogan. Dogan has usually been described in the media as either a Turk or a dual Turkish-American citizen, but in fact carried only an American passport with a Turkish residency stamp. Furkan’s father, Professor Ahmet Dogan, believes that the press is portraying his son as either a dual national or a Turkish citizen in an effort to “cover up” the reality of his son’s death." RomaC TALK 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that so many sources say otherwise makes it difficult. I would suggest something along the lines of "variously described as American with Turkish residency or having dual American-Turkish citizenship". We cannot be expected to know the vagaries of citizenship law, and what passport Dogan chose to carry is not determinative.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt. One way of approaching this is to include only information that can be absolutely verified. As far as I can see there are no sources saying that Dogan was not an American citizen, so we would not be getting anything wrong if we simply said he was American. RomaC TALK 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmph. I'm not so sure. Certainly he has birthright American citizenship, but there is more to it than that. I think that to be neutral here we should put additional information. And btw, he should be referred to as a 19-year-old if his age is mentioned, not as a teenager. Given the POV that the oilprice article displays, I would be more content with high-quality news sources to explain Dogan's citizenship status.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree "19-year-old" is better than "teenager". CSM also semi-addresses the uncertainty on whether Dogan also had Turkish citizenship here, that seems sufficient for the time being, until a better source gets the facts straight. How to note, with brevity, the fact that he was American and the possibility that he also had Turkish citizenship is a bit of challenge. I'll have a crack at it and post here later if nobody else has. RomaC TALK 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The CSM says that Dogan was a dual citizen and that the State Department confirmed it. I notice later in the article it says "apparent" dual-citizen, but I have not seen any news source that denies he was a dual citizen. I am not editing the article, I am merely here to help conciliate, but I really don't think there is any uncertainty here. If his parent was Turkish, he is Turkish. I would suggest posting and allowing discussion before making the alteration, as this has the potential for contention.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Checked through sources, about half say just "American" and half say "dual" (less common), or "Turkish-American." However sometimes in the US this construction (such as "Irish-American") can be used even when the person does not hold, for example, Irish citizenship. Also as Dugan was born in the US it is quite possible he never exercised his right to obtain Turkish citizenship. So what we do know is that he was American and lived in Turkey. Suggest "American resident of Turkey" because this is a) concise; b) correct. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 02:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Furkan Dogan was an American citizen and Turkish permanent resident the article says. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kasalaan, which source of the four reliable sources you have posted (one is merely a photo and caption) says he is a Turkish permanent resident? And RomaC, please review WP:SYNTH. You are guessing that a US immigrant to Turkey might be called "Turkish-American", there does not appear to be substantiation for that. And as for the Dogan article, we are not our own source. Under Turkish nationality law, Dogan is a Turk. Pure and simple. He is the son of a Turk so he is a Turk. All reliable sources which address the issue say he is a dual citizen. And, Kasaalan, what another Wikipedia article says really doesn't matter, especially as I looked at the sources over there and couldn't find one which made him out to be a permanent resident ... --Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
His father stated he is American citizen by a RS. So we should report his claims one way or another. Also my point is you may discuss the case in Furkan Dogan first and ask article contributors opinions. American or American-Turkish dual citizen is best solution until everything is cleared out. Kasaalan (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Very well, American-Turkish dual citizen seems to be supported by most reliable sources, as well as by the authorities.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a nice one. Not only has the Dogan as dual citizen, but the PM of Turkey calls him Turkish.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As a politician he is not a reliable source at all. Also he is a direct party involved. Dogan's father should know better about his citizenship status. Calling is one thing, proving with a paper is another. Kasaalan (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so where is the paper that says what Dogan's citizenship status is? And please, Kasaalan, do not confuse being a reliable source with NPOV. Is there any reputable newspaper that calls him a Turkish permanent resident? Given the Turkish citizenship article, I find no doubt he is a Turkish citizen. In addition, the Turkish government would be unlikely to allow him to reside in Turkey and evade his Turkish military obligation. But show me something from a major newspaper or news service that says he is a Turkish permanent resident.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt, sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly. I don't think it's Synth to say that when a newspaper uses the term "Turkish-American", that this does not mean the paper is saying the person is a Turkish citizen. The Chicago Manual of Style clearly says these hyphenated terms can be either "national or ethnic" descriptors. That's what I meant by giving "Irish-American" as an example, Does not mean the person is an Irish citizen.
Although children of Turks born overseas have the de jure right to Turkish citizenship, if they do not register their births with Turkish officials then they have not claimed citizenship, ie they don't exist according to Turkey.
So we shouldn't look at Dogan then look at Turkish citizenship law and conclude that one fits the other so it must be so. There are many reasons why this may be incorrect, one you touched on for example is an American of Turkish ethnicity residing in Turkey who may choose not to register his birth there because he does not want to do the military service, etc.
Also, we do have a statement from his father that Dogan was American and not Turkish. That should count for something.
Again, what we do know for certain is that Dogan was born in Troy, NY, that he was an American citizen and that he was residing in Turkey. I think we have to go with verifiable information. RomaC TALK 03:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
We have multiple reliable sources saying he is a dual citizen, as well as the United States Secretary of State and the Prime Minister of Turkey! Set that against a statement attributed to his father in an unreliable source. It is fully verifiable that he was a dual citizen. That is highly verifiable. Show me a reliable source that says he's not a Turkish citizen! (and no, if it just refers to him as an American, that does not count.). I'm asking for a third opinion on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3O is a nice lightweight way to get some uninvolved eyes on this but I think it's reserved for when only two editors are in discussion -- we have three editors participating in this section. Maybe we can do a RfC? Or a RS check on the Eurasia Review, per: "The ninth victim was an American teenager, 19-year-old Furkan Dogan. Dogan has usually been described in the media as either a Turk or a dual Turkish-American citizen, but in fact carried only an American passport with a Turkish residency stamp. Furkan’s father, Professor Ahmet Dogan, believes that the press is portraying his son as either a dual national or a Turkish citizen in an effort to “cover up” the reality of his son’s death."
On Turkish PM Erdogan, again the quote could refer to Turkish ethnicity, it does not explicitly say "citizen". See this source, Erdogan: "It is meaningful the U.S. administration is not interested in death of American citizen Furkan Dogan just because he is of Turkish origin." Respectfully, RomaC TALK 03:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Requested a RS check [1] RomaC TALK 04:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RomaC is correct, 3O is for when only two editors are unable to reach consensus. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The source I have provided for Furkan Doğan's citizenship is as follows: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/furkan-dogan-in-babasi-oglum-amerikan-vatandasi-olduguna-guvenip-yola-cikti-/turkiye/sondakika/06.06.2010/1247396/default.htm. This source is still used in this page. According to Milliyet newspaper, his father says "Benim oğlum sadece ABD vatandaşı. Çifte vatandaş değil. Orada doğdu. Sadece ABD pasaportu taşıyordu. Yapılabilecek tüm şeyleri bu ülkenin yapması gerekiyor", in English "My son is a U.S. citizen only. Not dual citizenship. He was born there. He was just carrying U.S. passport. All the things that can be done should be done by U.S." Some sources were claiming he was also a Turkish citizen but these sources did not prove their claims and did not use a speech of Furkan's father. Furkan's father is the man who knows this issue best. Kavas (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit wordy, but how about "Furkan Dogan, who has been widely reported to be a Turkish-US citizen, but whose father has alleged was only a US citiizen"?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not, "Furkan Dogan, a US citizen with residency status (and according to some sources, but not according to his father, citizenship) in Turkey," appropriately footnoted. I think "alleged by his father" is an extremely awkward phrasing, since it's not an allegation, but rather a description. Or "an American citizen of Turkish descent who was residing in Turkey" with all the Turkish citizenship stuff in the footnotes, because it doesn't seem notable.
Also, Wehwalt, can you post the Erdogan quote? Not that Erdogan is a RS for this, but if you're reading "Turkish-American" as a citizenship description, you're testing all of our good faith. Please let us know.--Carwil (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's linked in my comment above. Yes, I will grant the point of RomaC that he could be referring to ethnicity, but as there is no great discriminations against Turks in the US, that doesn't seem likely. I rather think that the second possibility of Carwi disregards most reliable sources which call him a dual citizen, so that is rather a problem. I suppose we could put the entire citizenship issue in a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reactions - UN says aid should go by land

Google News - UN says aid to Gaza should be delivered by land, 23 July 2010:

"There are established routes for supplies to enter by land. That is the way aid should be delivered to the people of Gaza," UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press briefing.
"Our stated preference has been and remains that aid should be delivered by established routes, particularly at a sensitive time in indirect proximity (peace) talks between Palestinians and Israelis," he added.
He made the comments after Israel served notice its forces would prevent a planned Lebanese aid flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip.

Nesirky (who is the spokesman for the UN Secretary-General) was speaking prior to Lebanese ships sailing to Gaza, not reacting to the Gaza flotilla raid. Looks to me as though the information doesn't belong in the Reactions section.

More:

  • Haaretz - Aid for Gaza must be delivered by established land routes, UN says, 23 July 2010.
  • Jerusalem Post - Blair: Aid flotillas not helpful, 23 July 2010. Note: He added, "There are now established channels for delivering aid and other goods to Gaza, in line with the new policy which we have worked on for several weeks. The organizers should take advantage of these channels to transfer the goods to Gaza.” The implication is that there are channels for delivering aid now that didn't exist previously.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, ZScarpia. It is totally WP:OR on my part, but new channels might refer to El-Arish -> Rafah Border Crossing path, see MV Amalthea and Egypt new position, other paths existed also before. Based on sources my line of though is that Nesirky said Our stated preference has been and remains that aid should be delivered by established routes, i.e. by land. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
He also said, on behalf of the UN, that aid supplies should entered Gaza "unfettered", so added that. RomaC TALK 16:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Recurring topics

Sticky
Please do not archive this section.

Some topics have already been discussed, but keep reappearing. I would like to remind my fellow editors to read the following topics before making pertinent changes:

Please add to the list as you see fit. — Sebastian 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER RECURRING TOPIC: The wording of the accounts in the Lead. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Addition_of_qualifying_statements_in_the_lead

There was a recent change here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365708414
Perhaps the wording should be discussed again.

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to move that section down here? — Sebastian 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If you like, I don't know exactly what the standards are for reformatting the Talk page and I don't want to confuse people by accidentally handling it wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
All of the following images are problematic, as they come from press agencies and may breach our fair use policy: File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. Press agency pictures are particularly problematic if the use infringes on their commercial rights or the image is replaceable. Generally we can only use such pictures if the picture itself is the subject of analysis. Fences&Windows 12:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also

Earlier threads (newest first):

SS EXODUS

This has been discussed ad nauseum in at least 3 different sections. It has also been subject of an edit war, repeatedly added and repeatedly rolled back.

But as of right now, there is not consensus to include it in the article. Wikipedia:BRD suggests that it should not be readded, until after there exists consensus. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Law professors

I would agree that information from reports that contain an overview of the legal discussion on the event would be better. However, as long as such sources are not available, I'd say that the inclusions of the statements from law professors is appropriate. They receive more weight than statements from other people because they are expert in a relevant profession.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Should be fine as long as they are cited in reliable secondary sources, and are not merely vanity wP:SELFPUBs (press releases, blogs, etc.). -- Kendrick7talk 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
@Cs32en - I appreciate thier opinions might be more relevant than other peoples', but the counter argument is that there are probably 100s of law proffessors who have recorded opinions on this issue. Are we to list them all? NickCT (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, of course, there is the question of specialism.     ←   ZScarpia   17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck!

Since things seem to have calmed down here, I'm removing my adminly presence and unwatchlisting. Let me know if there's any flareups, and I will help if I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Shooting in the legs

this edit said that it was removing duplication. It turned it from lessthanlethal paintball guns to the presumption that it was much worse. YouTube can also be used as a source sometimes. There is no blanket ban (see my essay: WP:Video links. We might need to prohibit all of the links from that channel but I was under the impression that people were OK with it. Even if it isn;t, better to at least try to find an alternate secondary source instead of skewing the text so badly.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

İHH or IHH?

Turkish name is İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri İnsani Yardım Vakfı, so the abbreviation must be İHH. But in English, there is not a "İ" letter, so it can be IHH. Which one is true? Now, both IHH and İHH (at only one place) are used in the article. Kavas (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed IHH to İHH. Kavas (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

As well-documented, Free Gaza sent many aid ships to Gaza over the last several years, the casualties are what make this event notable per reliable sources, so moving that section out of its inappropriate last-place position in the article. RomaC TALK

No, it should start with "Background" obviously. (By the way, I managed to decrease the size of the Gaza blockade after many attempts.) Kavas (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Not all articles follow chronology, especially those with 2000+ word background sections. Isn't the reason we have this article because people died? That information should not be buried at the very bottom of the article. respectfully, RomaC TALK 17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kavas and RomaC. The casualties are relevant, but they should not be the beginning of the article. There is a table of contents for people who wish to go directly to the casualties section, but the flow of the article before the change was far better since it went through the event step by step and gave relevant background and explanation. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you like flow, but we're not writing literature here. I don't think readers will be confused if we start with the most important information then go to the less important information. RomaC TALK 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well a detailed list of the casualties and the way they died is not the most important information. In any case the deaths are mentioned prominently in the lead. The details belong towards the end of the article. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the names and personal details of the dead, except for the politician and the American teenager, who both got more media attention, could be lower in the article. But it's weird to split them up they should be in one place. What do you suggest?
Considering all the other crap that's been stuffed into this article to try and create causality narratives I won't accept having the information on deaths and injuries (numbers and cause of death) buried at the very bottom of the article. As for the lead, here are two pieces of information that currently come before we tell the reader that nine died: 1) Israel wants to stop Hamas from getting weapons; 2) Israel requested that the aid be taken to Ashdod so it could make an inspection then deliver the stuff itself. Sorry not acceptable.
A preponderance of sources on this event address the deaths in their first graph or so. Suggesting the deaths and injuries are not the most important aspect of this event is ridiculous: where are the Wiki articles on the other eight attempts to break the blockade, where nobody was killed? Do I really have to go and find example articles that don't strictly follow chronological order? Cheers, RomaC TALK 02:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Roma, you make a good point about the place where the deaths are mentioned in the lead. See my revision here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=379519329&oldid=379518772
However I firmly standby my previous statements regarding the location of the casualty information in the body of the article. The reason for this is quite simply that wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and the content should be presented in a way that remains neutral and educates readers. Putting the casualties first does neither. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Autopsy vs Autopsy

Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=379424069&oldid=379423180

Since Israel and Turkey are the two main parties in this event it is very relevant where the information comes from. In this case the fact that the autopsies were conducted in Turkey is relevant since both sides were putting out propaganda to support their positions. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with Zucchini one's view. However, "Turkish autopsy" read a bit like Turkish autopsies were something extremely peculiar (like Russian roulette, to give an example that probably does not fit perfectly well). I'd suggest to write "Autopsies performed by Turkish authorities" or something more specific.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm ... yeah ... I guess Turkish Autopsies aren't as popular as Turkish delights ... which are quite delightful by the way ... But Cs32en's suggestion is a good one. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Are the autopsy results disputed by a party in the event? Otherwise it's just an editor's personal speculation that the autopsy results might be propaganda and so should have this awkward qualification. RomaC TALK 01:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should be careful with speculation. But as long as we don't introduce synthesis or original research into the article, some kind of speculation may well help guiding editorial decision. That the origin of some kind of information is important, if the information comes from people that are considered close to one party in a dispute, is a reasonable assumption, in my view. Let's just apply the same standards to all parties involved.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Big recent additions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=379762777&oldid=379750817

The above edit seems to have put quite a lot of new information into the article. I'm not sure that all of the information is NPOV or whether it belongs in the article at all. For example the addition of the rockets being fired into Israel doesn't seem to be appropriate. Thoughts?? Zuchinni one (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a "claim". A ctrl f showed even more since the last time. Time to go through and make a clean up? Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Largely worthless edit, full of original research and terrible sourcing. Apparently the editor is under the impression that citing a law is all that is necessary when describe someone's views on that law. Wrong. ← George talk 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Preparations section

This section suggests the old Armada of Terror narrative, with the "rioters" and their "arsenal" and claims that they were well-trained in fighting etc. No sources. Suggest it go into the trash. RomaC TALK 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest someone find sources and modify. See how that works.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing yet per Israel, the others suggest the aim of the convoy was to engage Israeli army and navy commandos. Given the flotilla passengers had tons of aid but hadn't brought a single gun the only support for this assertion as "Preparation" is Israeli POV, tagging the section. RomaC TALK 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Still no reliable secondary sources have been provided to support this newly-added section, which anyway is original research advancing a POV narrative i.e., that the passengers on the Free Gaza Flotilla ships set out not to deliver aid but rather to fight with Israeli soldiers. Removing the section until editors put forth some sort of argument that might get a consensus that it belongs. ADD: On second though, I won't do this per the 1RR, if another editor wants to either present a case for or get rid of the "Preparations" section now, please do. RomaC TALK 16:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

casualties before background?

looks like a very inappropriate edit. and why is the lead so big? who is Espen Goffeng? why should he be in the lead? this article needs some serious attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.226.21 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome 132.69.226.21, is this your first-ever edit on Wikipedia? I agree the lead is a pile of shit. Some editors want qualifications and causality on almost everything, so it's not "Israel raided an aid convoy and X were killed"; it's "A dodgy group was bringing weird stuff on a convoy that was not exactly about delivering aid but about the political act of breaking a blockade which Israeli (and Egypt too!) have in place to stop some radical Islamists from getting weapons that could be used against Israel. The dodgy group refused reasonable requests to have Israel help them offload and deliver all that stuff and instead attacked Israelis with weapons such as keffiyehs. Nine died. Israelis were injured by the weapons, as were some from the dodgy group, who were flown on Israeli helicopters for treatment in first-class hospitals, right beside Israeli soldiers..."
I moved the casualties info up because it is the most notable aspect of the event. If people had not died the event would not have an article, like the other eight Free Gaza sailings. Not all articles proceed in chronological order, we are not writing bedtime stories. Of course, open to a compromise if the IDF narratives are removed, we need the numbers killed and how and numbers of injuries up top, the victims' names and further details on this can go lower. Let's hear suggestions! RomaC TALK 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A reminder about maintaining Neutrality on Wikipedia. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Chronology is easy and the background happened before people were fighting. What aspect was more important (the actual trip, the fighting, the dead, and so on) could all be disputed and keeping it chronological makes it an easy choice instead.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
So it looks like pretty everyone who has commented on this besides RomaC is in favor of the background coming first. However Roma made a good point about how the deaths weren't originally mentioned until late in the lead. I've changed that so that they are mentioned in the first sentence. At this point I am going to restore the rest of the article to chronological order. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree not all details have to go into the lead, I had asked for suggestions. So now just numbers killed/injured and how, also reordered to abseiled-->clashed per above editors' preference for chronological presentation of events. RomaC TALK 16:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious labels

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=379665145&oldid=379654346

We should be consistent and either label every opinion with the religion of the speaker or not do it at all. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dershowitz is a persistent defender of Israeli views and interests, but so are other experts who are not Jews. His faith is irrelevant in this context, so I would drop it here and in all other cases, unless there is a specific reason to mention the faith, i.e. if the faith of an expert would be regularly referred to by reliable sources when referring to that expert's opinions.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster totally. To point out religion selectively (or some would say at all) can be POV. ValenShephard (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree Dershowitz's ethnicity/religion should not be added as qualifiers, this is policy, right? RomaC TALK 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"code named Operation Sea Breeze or Operation Sky Winds"

Can we have just one codename please? RomaC TALK 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, both names have been used in reliable sources, and maybe even by the IDF itself in its translations. There is also a third code name documented in reliable sources that contains a number. In my view, there are too few reliable sources to decide this on the basis of preponderant use, but additional sources may have become available in the last two months.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the most common name "Operation Sea Breeze" according to gHits, with a footnote to the other two Israeli names? Shall we also include "Gaza Flotilla massacre", which gets more gHits than the three Israeli names combined, in order to reflect how the event was termed outside Israel? RomaC TALK 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
We have an event where a bunch of people were killed and injured and the alternative names sound like copy from a beach resort brochure. Other terms have been used by parties other than Israel, believe it is NPOV to include them. RomaC TALK 02:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to drop the bold font from the code names. The scope of the article is much larger than what the purely military codenames would cover, so they are not alternative names for the event, and they actually haven't been used to describe the event by reliable sources (there may be one or two exceptions).  Cs32en Talk to me  03:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

We've got a very long lead on our hands. It need not be this long, and I consider the following section particularly thick:

Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces commandos abseiled onto the deck and clashed with activists aboard the flotilla's largest passenger ship, the MV Mavi Marmara. Nine activists were shot and killed, many shot at close range.[1][2][3] Dozens were injured, and hundreds were detained.[4][5] Seven Israeli commandos were injured. The wounded activists were evacuated by Israeli air force helicopters for treatment in Israeli hospitals and medical facilities of the Israeli Prisons Service.[6] Some Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after activists struck one of their comrades.[7][5] Subsequent autopsies showed that some of the protestors were shot by automatic weapons in the backs of their heads.[8] Activists on board said the IDF opened fire on the ship before boarding.[9][10][11] Espen Goffeng, an activist from Norway, said Israeli soldiers started with paintball rounds, then switched to rubber bullets and then afterwards used live ammunition.[4] It was the first attempt of the Free Gaza Movement to break the Gaza strip naval blockade that resulted in deaths.[12] Israeli officials have accused the İHH of sending a group of activists on the MV Mavi Marmara determined to instigate violence;[13] the İHH rejected the accusation.[14] Israel seized and inspected the cargo, 70 truck-loads, and requested the UN to oversee its transfer to Gaza. Hamas authorities initially refused to accept the aid, but later accepted UN responsibility. Aid distribution negotiations are under way between the İHH, which co-sponsored the flotilla, and the UN.[15][16][17] The UN said groups seeking to deliver aid to the people of Gaza should do so by established land routes, and that it is vital there be "unfettered access" for supplies into the Gaza Strip.[18]

I suggest rewriting it as follows:

Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces commandos abseiled onto the deck and clashed with activists aboard the flotilla's largest passenger ship, the MV Mavi Marmara. Nine activists were shot and killed.[1][2][3] Dozens were injured, and hundreds were detained.[4][5] Seven Israeli commandos were injured.[19] Both sides place responsibility for the bloodshed on the other, and the circumstances of the violence are a matter of some controversy (see Post-boarding below).

I would like to invite suggestions from other editors, and also see if there is consensus before I make such a drastic change. Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with shortening the lead in that way. We should make sure that no information or sources get lost, and move content to the text body when appropriate. I assume that all (surviving) passengers have been detained, so "hundreds" may lead to be misinterpretations. But actually, I'm not sure whether all, i.e. including the journalists, were detained.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Holy crap! Clear, concise, and NPOV ... I think I just had a wiki-gasm! There should still probably be mention somewhere in the lead of the seized cargo but that can be a short sentence at the end of what you already wrote. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good Saepe. RomaC TALK 02:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I would change "are a matter of some controversy (see Post-boarding below)" to "are being disputed". With the sections on "Activist's accouts" and "Israeli account", the reader will probably need no extra guidance, and, to me, the self-reference appears un-encyclopedic. Thank you for taking up this work with the lead section!  Cs32en Talk to me  03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Article is planned for vandalism attacks

This article is slated to be subject to organized vandalism: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-right-s-latest-weapon-zionist-editing-on-wikipedia-1.308667 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.250.250 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I'm not sure that I read the Haaretz article quite the same (the article seems to be talking about when this article was first created), however it's good to be aware of possible problems. I'd imagine that this article is now quite heavily watched by admins, and it'll be protected if necessary. If problems crop up and no protection is forthcoming, it can be requested at WP:RFPP. TFOWR 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is also targeted here: http://wikibias.com/2010/08/wikipedia-a-how-to-guide/ RomaC TALK 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well it looks like there will be more and more people coming to edit IP-conflict articles soon. Hopefully the editors will be from both sides of the debate and if we're really lucky then maybe we can all help to educate new editors to the perspectives of people on both sides of the issues.
We have a chance to show what it means to be WP:NPOV and maybe if we all work hard to keep out rhetoric and to do our best to keep things here honest and neutral ... then perhaps these new editors can become positive contributors instead of needing to be smashed with the ban-hammer. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Who the hell is 72.152.250.250? Is he a vandal? I hate IPs! How about you look at WP:BITECptnono (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


The NY Times article (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists/) makes it clear that the neutral point of view of articles such as this are going to be coming under attack. "For example, he said, “if someone searches [for] ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.” "Zionist in nature" openly flouts the notions of an impartial encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowclap (talk • contribs) 00:27-00:28, 21 August 2010

WP:AN/I discussion archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers. --Muchness (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes

OK ... so it looks like this article went from calm to crazy in the last week or so. In particular there have been a lot of changes to the lead and those always tend to worry me the most.

Some of the biggest changes have already been reverted, but others keep coming. Here is a short list to open up discussion on some of the changes

1) Rocket attack section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=380122207&oldid=380121843

This section was recently added and subsequently removed. I don't think it has any place in the article and all the supposed links between increased rocket attacks after the incident are all WP:OR and seems pro-Israel POV to me.

I support the removal. The source that was used to connect the flotilla raid to the rocket was a non-RS, and the other source very likely do not make a connection.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

2) Ordering of article

This seems to have been resolved as per the discussions above in the "Casualties" and "Casualties before Background" sections, but input is always welcome.

Also there was a recent change to the lead here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=380168123&oldid=380161411

Where the comments say it is being reordered chronologically, however there were also changes to the content where information was both removed and added which overall seems to favor a pro-flotilla POV

Should have been two distinct edits, on the added info support the concise rewrite suggested below which gets rid of all the causality/bargaining that has bloated the lead. RomaC TALK 02:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

3) Preparations section Gaza_flotilla_raid#Preparations

This section seems largely worthless to me and appears to push a pro-Israel POV. The relevant information already exists elsewhere in the article. All in all I think it should go.

I agree. There are non-RS in the section, and the reliable sources do not appear to support the specific statements included in that edit. Most of the information, especially the information that appears to be actually based on the sources, already is included elsewhere.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree, can someone please remove the section? I think I already reverted today. RomaC TALK 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
So let it be written ... and now be undone :) Zuchinni one (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

4) Asking flotilla to go to Ashdod ... when did it happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=380173428&oldid=380170763

I don't have the citations in front of me, but I recall that the flotilla organizers were told in advance they could bring the aid to Ashdod for inspection.

Yeah, I don't have the source in front of me either, but I remember reading it at the time. They were told in advance. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I see the calls on the radio sourced, I think they were headed to Gaza to break the blockade pretty well says what they were doing; the "ignored requests to have inspections then the (approved) items transferred into Gaza by Israel" is sorta messy and anyway it is disputed to what extent Israel transferred the aid. RomaC TALK 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed regarding the amount of aid that would be transferred. As I recall, at the time Israel specifically said they would NOT transfer any of the construction materials ... and who knows what else. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

5) Incorrect 'citation needed' tag led to removal of this bit of text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=380174603&oldid=380173428

The citation already existed at the end of the following sentence: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-captain-activists-prepared-attack-against-idf-raid-1.295591

This edit should probably be reverted and the 'citation needed' tag removed.

6) Autopsies in lead http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=380161411&oldid=380122207

The Turkish autopsy results were recently added to the lead. I'm not sure they are sufficiently relevant to be in the lead, especially since they have been challenged. They mostly seem to be used to add "shot at close range" and other dramatic details which seem to be used to endorse the flotilla POV.

The autopsies must be included, but you're right that the lead is not the appropriate place for them. The lead has become a slew of accusations, rather than a genuine summary. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zuchinni one's and Saepe Fidelis' take on this.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I 100% agree with Saepe & Cs32en that the autopsies should be included ... just not in the lead.
Lead does not need "at close range" support the concise version below. RomaC TALK 02:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

7) Espen Goffeng in the lead?

I'm not exactly sure when this guy made it into the lead, but what is he doing there? There is a place in the article for quotes and perspectives from both sides. I think this should be removed, and replaced with the RS that were originally there that mentioned the use of paintballs.

"Espen Goffeng, an activist from Norway, said Israeli soldiers started with paintball rounds, then switched to rubber bullets and then afterwards used live ammunition."

This sentence, and some other sentences in close promity to it, should be transferred to the article's text body.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems Espen was added to support the paintball narrative, I say take him out. RomaC TALK 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

This article should be renamed Gaza flotilla incident. It is clearly established that the incident was a deliberate provocation and that the militants aboard the largest ship in the flotilla were armed and that they attacked the Israeli soldiers. Raid, in these circumstances, is a POV word.AMuseo (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you look through the archives at all the previous discussions about renaming. They were numerous and long. Suffice it to say that given the history of the name debate that already occurred here, any renaming will not be a simple matter. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I do see. But I also see that the information on the deliberate nature of the planned provocation by the Islamists on board the flotilla. the lack of actual aid supplies in any substantive quantity, the refusal of the Israeli offer to offload and deliver the supplies by organizers who were carrying out a political operation under the pretense of delivering humanitarian aid have changed the nature of the topic while the article continues to uphold a now obsolete narrative. It is time to bring the narrative thrust of the article into line with the NPOV policy and tchanging the article title to a NPOV title should be part of that process.AMuseo (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You are making your own POV very clear, so it will be pretty tough to argue to remove what you claim is another. Please use sources to create an argument. But still, as user Zuchinni one says, you will have a tough time arguing for a renaming. ValenShephard (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not see a reason to re-open a discussion on the title unless numerous quotations from reliable sources that would support a new title would be presented.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"Incident" = Weasel word. I'm 100% okay with changing the name, but not to "incident." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed. Most relevant policy is probably WP:COMMONNAME. Search engine results would argue for "raid". Obviously AMuseo is trying to get the title to conform to his POV. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Death in the Med

I suggest all editors view the Panorama documentary. There is no mention here that the IDF tried to board the ship conventionally but were repelled by projectiles. And also that 2/3 of the medicine was out of date, and therefore useless. Pro-Palestians have slammed the film. Chesdovi (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even medicine that is out of date can be useful. In fact most drugs are good well past their use-by date ... although there usually has been some denaturing of the active ingredients from time and heat. So I think the argument that it is useless is BS.
As for the IDF trying to board conventionally ... there is video of that ... some was released by the IDF and some by flotilla participants. It quite clearly shows Israeli troops in some kind of speed boat trying to board, but being hosed down with water and repelled with stun grenades & all sorts of random things like plates. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the out of date medicien has been called "useless" by Corbin and according to Al Jazzera, is being sent to the landfill. So this should be added, whatever you and your crude little mind may think. Chesdovi (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The Al Jazeera report is about the last 18 months and ongoing medicine issues it never specifies or even mentions the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Also "out-of-date" is just one problem the others are the wrong types or quantities of medicines. (The report does say that there is a list of 115 types of medicine Gaza desperately needs, anyone know where this could be found?) Also Ches, I suggest you consider striking your uncivil comment above. RomaC TALK 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there actually a source that says that passengers have used a stun grenade? I'd imagine that a stun grenade would look different, and that this was something that was probably burning, but was not specifically manufactured for the purpose.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah there are many RS reports of the stun grenades, and its also quite clearly a stun grenade in at least one of the videos. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says the stun grenades that were thrown by the Israelis were thrown back at them. I have been having some difficulties with the original video, so I'm using the youtube videos [2] and [3], and an online [4]. There are many useful pieces of information in this report that should be put in the article. Unfortunately, they don't fit well with the article as it is currently structured. Let me organize them as best I can. I ask for the help of fellow editors in deciding which ones belong in the article, and where:

  1. "We’re going to defeat the Israeli commandos –we’re declaring it now. If you bring your soldiers here, we will throw you off the ship and you’ll be humiliated in front of the whole world." When the head of the IHH, which organized the flotilla, makes this comment hours before encounter, this is relevant. I think it makes the most sense to place this with the Israeli accounts of the incident, although this is not an Israeli account.
  2. Late that night it was clear to the crew of the ship that a core group of IHH organisers had taken control of the Mavi Marmara. A crew member testifies there were about forty IHH members who took over. I think this belongs in the activists' accounts.
  3. We cut the metal bars from the ship at that moment. We didn’t have many of them. If the Israelis came to the boat, we’d use them. That was our intention. Activists' accounts.
  4. The security cameras on the ship show the IHH men on the top deck with bars and wooden staves. They’d stocked up with gas masks. Activists' accounts?
  5. From above we threw chairs and anything we could find down on them, and after a while they moved away. Activists' accounts?
  6. But I found that two thirds of the medicines are out of date and useless. Note, she doesn't just say "out of date;" she says "out of date and useless," so without doing OR, we can conclude that they were useless. Belongs in Fate of aid cargo.

Thoughts? Am I missing something important? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding expiration dates on medicine, the source above is wrong. See Prescription_drug#Expiration_date. It might be OK to say that "so and so said the medicine was useless, but most drugs are good well past their expiration date". But I would rather that the idea of "useless medicine" not be mentioned at all since it is just plain wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the stun grenades. My impression was that there were two events:
1) Israelis tried to board by speedboats that came alongside the Mavi Marmara. This was the first point of physical contact and the Israelis were prevented from boarding with non-lethal force, mostly water & random objects from the boat, but also at least 1 stun grenade. Also I was under the impression that during this encounter there was not any lethal or non-lethal aggression by the Israelis troops.
2) The Israelis flew choppers over the boat & abseiled down. During this event the Israelis initially used stun grenades (some of which might have been thrown back at them) and paintball guns. Both of which were possibly fired from the helicopters before they got on deck. Then once on deck things got nuts as per all the vids.
If I'm wrong about the above feel free to correct me.
Zuchinni one (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right about the sequence of events, except if the one stun grenade was mentioned in this source, then I must have missed it. Please point me to where it is mentioned here or in another source.
As for the medicines--and this is not a minor point--the BBC does not simply say they were "out of date," but that they were "out of date and useless." I think the reason for this is because of the argument you propose, which is that medicine can be out of date, and still be useful, so they wanted to clarify that it was not. Bear in mind (and this is from other sources), that a lot of the medicine had expired by as much as a year to fifteen months. At that point, you could be looking at kidney failure, depending on the medicine and the patient.
Any thoughts about how to include the rest of the information from the report in the article? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't really comment on the video since it's "Not available in my area". Unfortunately the limited availability makes it a source that we really can't use. Perhaps you can find a transcript somewhere that is freely accessible. In any case, take a peek at the link above and you'll see that most medicine is fine even 15 YEARS after the expiration date. There are some notable exceptions, but using expired medicine is a common thing, especially when people talk about humanitarian aid. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Zucchinni, you can find links to youtube videos and a transcript in my first post above.
As far as the medicine, it seems you're almost trying to ignore my argument. My argument isn't that medicine is necessarily useless after its expiration date. Certain medicines can be. The source said those medicines were useless, so what you're suggesting is OR. Do you understand my argument? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

9 people died x2

Encyclopedias don't repeat things they already said just because editors think those things are important. Example: In the WP article about the Holocaust, the number of dead is only listed once in the lead. Also, the raid resulted in many important consequences other than the death of 9 activists (deteriorating diplomatic relationships, etc). Do we also need to repeat all of these twice in the lead? Editors need to stop edit warring in this needless repetition. Kinetochore (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you removed the content, appreciate your concern it was mentioned twice. But another editor had just added it to the first graph. (Repeating) Here are two pieces of information that currently come before we get around to telling the reader that nine died: 1) Israel wants to stop Hamas from getting weapons; 2) Israel requested that the aid be taken to Ashdod so it could make an inspection then deliver the stuff itself. Sorry unacceptable the deaths were clearly a more notable aspect of the event and belong in the first graph. RomaC TALK 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It makes the most sense to summarize an event chronologically - otherwise the readers will be confused about the order of events. If you think of another way to write the lead, then propose it - just make sure the lead doesn't end up repeating itself.Kinetochore (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

One-sidedness?

I noticed, when browsing, that there are many more images supporting Israel than Palestine. As far as I know, Wikipedia is supposed to provide evenly-balanced facts, and allow the reader to decide. As I support Palestine, it greatly hurts me. So, i have a few suggestions. 1:Try to paint a two-sided story- provide evidence for both sides,and tell the reader to decide. 2:Eliminate some of the facts. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.133.222 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken regarding lack of balance in pictures. I think removing facts is a bad idea, unless they're irrelevant, redundant, or otherwise untrue.
I have to disagree with the idea that Wikipedia is a place to "paint a two-sided story." It's a forum to include all viewpoints, not just two. This article should not be reduced to an argument over who was right and who was wrong (although that is a very important part of this topic). It should be about what happened that day, its context and its aftermath. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to provide information, or course in a manner consistent with due weight, but not with the aim of creating two compilations of opposing propaganda. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Very well said, Saepe. --Kslotte (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what lack of balance in the pictures the anonymous contributor was talking about. If editors feel the article is unbalanced it should be discussed and fixed. Do one of you want to make a list and explain? Zuchinni one (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think 76.184.133.222 meant the IDF sourced pictures. And, that we don't have much pictures taken by the activists. But, this has logical explaining, since all activist possessions was confiscated. --Kslotte (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Kılıçlar

This source is cited as saying that, "Forensic investigation found that Kılıçlar was shot in the head at close range." The careful reader will note that (1) it never actually says that, (2) this barely (if at all) qualifies as a RS, and (3) the source explicitely says forensic results have not been released.

I am removing the above statement. Anyone objected may discuss here. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another CONVICTED terrorist was onboard the Mavi Marmara,

One of the men on the Mavi Marmara spent three years in a Turkish prison for hijacking a ferry in the Black Sea in 1996; this indicates just who the “activists” were on the boat that tried to break the Gaza blockade on May 31, Foreign Ministry officials said Monday.

The Turkish newspaper Hurrieyt reported over the weekend that Erdinc Tekir, who was hurt during the IDF raid on the boat, was among the ninemember team that hijacked the Black Sea ferry to bring the 1996 war in Chechneya to the world’s attention. Tekir spent some three and a half years in prison for the incident.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=185741 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.7.182 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Purported" does NOT imply an NPOV

How about changing text from "Five days after the raid, IDF released an audio recording purporting to be of a radio exchange..." to "Five days after the raid, IDF released an audio recording that it claimed was of a radio exchange..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjm319 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:WORDS Both are not acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine and, as the matter is contested, leaving out "purporting" (or "claimed") would be a much larger NPOV issue. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Dunno what people are talking about, but why not just replace "purported" with "said"? "Five days after the raid, the IDF released an audio recording it said was a radio exchange between..."? ← George talk 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, George, when you talk such sense you just make us all hang our heads in shame. ;-) Seriously though, yours sounds like the best idea I've seen yet. According to WP:WORDS "Purported" is a negative value judgment; "claimed" is too. But "said" is about as NPOV as one could ask for. Good suggestion; I think we should go with it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Gül

Does president Gül say it is "an event between two friends"? [Gul 1][Gul 2] Kavas (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Turkish officials: We're committed to preserving friendly Israel ties". Ha'artez.
  2. ^ "'Turkey committed to maintaining friendly ties with Israel'". Jerusalem Post.

Removed. Kavas (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

People on board

Per WP:UNDUE, I intend to remove "Erdinç Tekir, convicted in the Black Sea hijacking" from the selection of "People on board". There is a separate article listing all notable people on board, and the reports about this individual are not substantial enough to mention him specifically in this article. Alternative, per WP:DUE, we would need to list a number of other notable participant in this article as well. This alternative, however, would in turn give probably undue weight to the section on the participants, and would not conform to WP:SUMMARY.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys are really working hard to get this guy removed from the article. He is a convicted Islamist militant. His presence on board strengthens the claim that there were Islamist militants on board. He should remain listed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it may be reasonable to mention him as being onboard, but the previous edits were quite NPOV and seemed designed to push a particular narrative. His presence alone does not mean we can assume anything about his motives or the motives of others. Also I'm concerned about a new page dedicated to Erdinç Tekir which was only recently created and seems to violate several wikipedia rules including WP:BLP and WP:Notable. The page itself seems to have been created for the express purpose of putting mention of Erdinç Tekir in this article (look at the page history) and none of the other people involved in the Black sea hijacking have their own wiki pages. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, no one of those who think it would be important that the name of Erdinç Tekir appears in this article bothered to add his name to List of participants of the Gaza flotilla. That may well tell us something about the motivations behind this activity. Looking at the complete list, there are any number of people that are more notable than Erdinç Tekir.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that mention of this unknown, not notable guy should be removed. On another note, I think we should nominate his article for speedy deletion, as you said, it appears to have been made simply to push a POV. ValenShephard (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I already told the article creator that there may be issues with it HERE, but I don't know enough about Erdinç Tekir to say much. As for his inclusion in this article, I really don't care one way or the other. We should just stick to the wikipedia notability standards and we'll be fine. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. So if we stick to WP:Notability mention of him would be removed? ValenShephard (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably lean towards removing him, but I do see why some editors would want to mention his presence. I think I'll leave it up to the rest of you :) Zuchinni one (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Considering we have at least three reliable sources from three different countries noting his participation, I think he passes the notability test. I haven't edited any of the other articles you mention and they are not relevant here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There are actually three different questions here: (a) is Tekir notable enough for a separate article on the encyclopedia? (under discussion); (b) can information about Tekir be included on Wikipedia? (yes, if based on the reliable sources that have reported on him); (c) is this article the best place to include information about Tekir? (in my view, it's not, and the article List of participants of the Gaza flotilla is the appropriate place, per WP:DUE, and relative notability to other passengers).  Cs32en Talk to me  16:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's an issue of UNDUE here since the POV that Islamist militants were on board is a significant one, and this supports that POV. It should be included per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:DUE and WP:NPOV are two different concepts. Facts, or individuals, for that matter, do not become more notable just because they may support one POV or another. Also, the representation of POV is based on explicit reporting on such POVs in reliable sources, not on our opinions as editors about what facts may or may not support a particular POV.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
DUE and NPOV are not two different concepts. There's a whole section in WP:NPOV about weight.
The Jerusalem Post has explicitly made the connection between this guy and the Islamist militant POV. It's not my personal opinion, although I'm sure it's pretty obvious to everyone. I suspect this is why some people are trying to have him removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the thesis that this was a "ship full of militants" is nothing more than a PR ploy to ameliorate international rage at the murder of humanitarian activist by Israeli soldiers. But nevertheless, under current Wikipedia policy, we must unfortunately give this thesis mention, since it's been extensively pumped out by the Zionist press. The Jerusalem Post is shamelessly dishonest, but nevertheless, at this point it is clearly considered a reliable source under WP:RS. The fact that they chose to give this guy a lot of weight means that we have to give it some weight. There has really been no valid argument made for the removal of his name, other than "he's not notable" (which he is per WP:Notability) and "we're giving it undue weight" (which we're not, because it's taking up a few words in the article). This needs to stay, for now. If a lot more information comes out on other passengeres later, then we can reconsider it per WP:DUE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd largely agree with Jrtayloriv's comments above. No More Mr Nice Guy is clearly trying to push a narrative here, but I don't see this as serious breach of WP:NPOV. If we are going to mention several people in the section in question, we ought to choose the several most notable people. Is "Erdinç Tekir" one of the most notable people? NickCT (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC
He is not. I did a google search, and I didnt find another source referring to him on the flotilla or calling him a "militant". ValenShephard (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support determining the mentions of passengers in the article by their respective notability. So the dead of course, then injured and politicians and leaders of organizations and so on, whatever reliable sources say. Cherry-picking a passenger due a prior reeks of the Glick approach: "We're not trying to be fair and balanced, we're trying to make a point" RomaC TALK 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
What policy are you basing your suggestion on? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably WP:NPOV, which states that we give things weight based on their prominence in reliable sources. Tekir has a miniscule amount of coverage in reliable sources. The fact that he's useful to push a certain viewpoint that you feel is important is irrelevant, as far as Wikipedia policy. He'll be mentioned along with other dozens of other barely notable individuals in List of participants of the Gaza flotilla, per WP:DUE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
At least Jrtayloriv sticks to policy while SOAPBOXing and building strawmen. That's refreshing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
At least Jrtayloriv's comment had some value and contributed to the conversation, unlike this one. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG. If reliable sources discuss his involvement with the flotilla, it warrants inclusion into this article. Notability rules apply to stand alone articles, not for content within articles.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning that Tekir should be included in this article, because he is mentioned in reliable sources would be correct if there were no subarticle that specifically contains the passengers of the flotilla. I would guess that about 20 of the passengers, if not more, have been mentioned rather extensively in reliable sources. Do we want to include all those names in this article? This is NOT about notability in the sense of the guideline about reliable sources and verifiability, but about the relative notability of this passenger relative to other passengers whose names are – as of now – only included in the article about the passengers of the flotilla ships.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I didn't notice the "List of passengers" article until just now. I'd say to look through the sources, and find around 5 of them who are most commonly mentioned, and use those, and then have an in-text Wikilink that points to the full list of passengers. Tekir is definitely not one of the most notable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
What policy are you basing this on, again? While I'm happy for you that you found an excuse to exclude something you don't like, I'd still like to hear what policy you are using, particularly considering NPOV. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm trying to improve the article rather than "finding an excuse to exclude something I don't like", and was originally arguing for inclusion of Tekir. I'm sorry you're so angry, and I hope you feel better soon. But as far as policy, I'd take a look at WP:LENGTH. Then, once you've understood that policy, and see why we need to break down this article into sub-articles, go ahead and take a look at WP:SUMMARY (particularly WP:DETAIL). Now that you understand summary style, we need to determine what are the most relevant bits of information to include in the summary. You can find this in WP:DUE (in WP:NPOV), which discusses how we determine which things are "most important" and deserve the most "weight" in the article. It's pretty clear on this, saying: Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Tekir is not anywhere near as prominent as many of the other activists on the ship in reliable sources, and thus deserves less weight. In the interests of making the article meet length requirements, we'll have to shorten most, if not all, of the sections in this article. This section can be shortened by listing the 5 or 6 most prominent people on the ship, and then linking to a full list in the sub-article. Hope that clears things up for you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all angry. Seems like you're projecting. Anyway, telling me to go read stuff isn't exactly explaining the policy you're basing your argument on.
As for your quote from NPOV (which does explain exactly what policy you're using), Tekir is not a "viewpoint". The viewpoint is that there were Islamist militants on board. This is a pretty prominent viewpoint and the 6 words (which I doubt violate LENGTH) saying that such a convicted Islamist militant was on board is a reflection of that viewpoint. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you're not angry -- maybe your bad faith accusations were just made jokingly, instead of out of anger. Sometimes humor is hard to read in plain text, you know? I'm glad we can still be friends. Anyhow, I didn't just tell you to read the policies I linked to; I explained to you why I was recommending reading them. But I'll do it again for you, since we're buddies now, and I don't want you to be confused: We're trying to shorten this article which is too long, by breaking it off into sub-articles. This article needs to then be written in summary style. Determining what is in this article falls under WP:DUE. Neutrality determines what topics are covered based on their prominence in reliable sources. Hopefully you'll take a look at the policies I recommended, so that you can understand all of this. The article needs to be shortened, and we need to cover the most prominent information in this article, relegating less notable things to sub-articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I misinterpreted your post where you were explaining why you don't like this information, the POV it supports (or your interpretation thereof), the Jerusalem Post, the "Zionist press", etc. I hope that's all behind us. Please see my comment in the section below. I find it very hard to see how we comply with NPOV when one POV is that there were a certain type of people on the ship, and we exclude the information that someone who was convicted of being this certain type of person was on board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it seems like you're misinterpreting (and misconstruing) quite a bit of what I've said. But it's OK, I'll keep trying. You need to understand that we are not trying to promote a point of view in this section. We are trying to write, in summary style, a neutral description of the notable passengers on board the ship. Why are you so insistent on using it as a platform to push a certain point of view? What is wrong with mentioning some of the most notable passengers here, and then placing individuals like Tekir and the dozens of other barely notable people in a sub-article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly representing all sides of a dispute is not "using it as a platform to push a certain point of view". It's NPOV. At the risk of repeating myself: Israel says there were militants on board. Others say there weren't. We know, as an undisputed fact, that at least one convicted militant was on board. That fact should be in this article, not hidden in a long list of names. That's NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) while i disagree with no more mr nice guy's general demeanor, i do see the validity of his point. this article makes no mention of the IHH's apparent ties to extremist groups, where as the organizations wiki page itself does. while Erdinc Tekir may not be notable in terms of the raid itself, his presence does lend credibility to the counter claims that the IHH's intentions onboard the mavi marmara were not simply humanitarian in nature.

as for the claims that Erdinc Tekir is not covered in any media. a quick google news search turned up three english articles which mention him by name (there appear to be more in turkish that i cannot read), one from the jerusalem post and two from the turkish news outlet hurriyet. one of the hurriyet articles is from 1999 and is about the avrasya ferry hijacking, and the other two are specifically about Erdinc Tekir, his participation in the avrasya ferry hijacking, and his presence on the mavi marmara. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yildrim's Testimony

I think the following section in the article ought to be removed:

Fehmi Bülent Yıldırım told Qatari newspaper list of 16 activists to be assassinated "fell from the pocket of an Israeli commando during the boarding" and also confirmed that Israeli soldiers tried to assassinate leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, Sheikh Raed Salah.[20]

Here are my reasons:

  1. This entire account rests on the tesimony of a single person.
  2. This person is not a third-party observer, but the leader of the IHH.
  3. Neither of the two people named to be on this alleged hit-list were killed, which seems to weaken the argument for validity.
  4. This information does not appear in many reliable sources, and therefore is given undew weight.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, sounds reasonable to remove. --Kslotte (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, Fehmi Bülent Yıldırım and Sheikh Raed Salah are not reliable sources, JPost is. Both are notable though. The info is clearly attributed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep it, I guess. It certainly is a theory from an RS and it's directly cited. There was a list found on an IDF commando (from the Iara Lee footage) but it didn't look very sinister. I'm not sure if it's really notable. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the Jerusalem Post, how many newspapers are you aware of, that published this account? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
JPost and Qatari newspapers make at least two. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen it in a mainstream newspaper, and I think the reason is absence of notability and credibility. Even if you did see it in a mainstream newspaper, you're talking about a really serious accusation, and this fails to meet the requirement that exceptional claims have exceptional sources. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Saepe, is it your opinion that the Jerusalem Post isn't "mainstream", or isn't a reliable source? I know nothing at all about the paper, but perhaps one's view of what constitutes "mainstream" depends on where on happens to reside. Sounds like a question for the reliable sources notice board to me. In any case, I don't believe the report, either: It just doesn't seem plausible to me. Granted, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the IDF might have had some kind of "most wanted list", for want of a better term. It's reasonable, after all, to expect that they'd have had more interest in some of the passengers they knew were on board than in others. But I find it pretty hard to imagine any kind of a "hit list", and impossible to believe that any Israeli soldier in such a circumstance could let such a thing just fall out of his pocket, if it did exist. That sounds ridiculous to me, frankly, and I wouldn't shed any tears of grief if the claim about the list, at least, were to be deleted. I don't imagine this justification will be found in any of our policy statements, but it seems to me that common sense ought to be allowed to rule the day once in awhile, at least, if only for the sake of novelty. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite well put. Let me articulate that I do find the JPOST to be a reliable and notable source. But it's not a gold-standard source like CNN, NYT, BBC, AP, Reuters, AFP etc. If this claim were not so extraordinary, I would not object to its inclusion. But we must respect the policy that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I think we can all agree that neither the newspaper nor the person quoted in it is an exceptional source. Am I correct in making that statement? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I was about to say that I agree the passage should be deleted, although I note we don't have consensus on that (see above) and also need to allow time for others to express their opinions. Then I looked more closely at the section in which the passage appears, Allegations regarding the intent of the parties. I suppose I still have to say "yes, I think it should be deleted", but deleting the passage will leave us with an important problem of balance. The section will contain no allegations at all from flotilla supporters or participants against Israel or the IDF. That hardly seems fair, given they've made lots of them. So it seems to me that we need to either delete the allegations of intent section altogether or balance it with more-credible allegations concerning Israel's motives, in equal weight, from flotilla participants or supporters. Can we agree that one or the other would be the fair course to follow, if consensus develops in favor of deleting the passage? And if we do delete the passage, do we add other allegations from flotilla supporters or do we just delete the section altogether?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right. And besides the fact that you're right, this section is pretty worthless, and almost begging to be blasted with propaganda. I would favor deleting the section, and dispersing the second paragraph to other relevant sections. Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Passengers of the Gaza flotilla's ships

Which passengers of the Gaza flotilla's ships should be mentioned in the article itself, i.e. not only in the subarticle on the passengers? See the section above for the discussion of this issue among involved editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to mention a lot of individual passengers in this article if we have a separate list for passengers. However, that list is restricted to notable passengers (some passengers became notable by dying on board) because it is a list article. This restriction need not necessarily be followed at the present article, but the way in which Tekir is currently mentioned ("Notable people aboard the flotilla included [...] Erdinç Tekir") is not OK if Tekir is not really notable. (I have never heard of him, but he may still be notable. There is currently an article Erdinç Tekir, but that looks like a borderline case as all the basic biographical information is missing.) The fact that one of the Black Sea hijackers was on board is of course absolutely noteworthy, but that doesn't mean that he has to be mentioned in the list. In fact, I don't even see the need for such an unstructured list. It would be better to describe the various types of passengers and give examples for each type where it makes sense. In Tekir's case no doubt giving the name similar to the way it currently happens in the list makes sense. Hans Adler 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to pick the 5 or 6 most notable passengers (judged by coverage in reliable sources) and include those in this article, along with an in-text Wikilink pointing to the full list at List of participants of the Gaza flotilla. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Since the actual issue here is Tekir (see above section), the real question is: Israel says there were Islamist militants on board the ship. Others say there weren't. Reliable sources say this specific convicted Islamist militant was on board. Would it be NPOV to exclude this information? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the misleading conclusion I think they are trying to avoid, that "there was a convicted Islamist militant on board so this proves it was a plot!". That theory might make sense if Tekir had been a member of a radical Muslim group. Tekir, whatever his politics or religion, was convicted for his pro-Chechen crimes. I support Jrtayloriv's suggestion and Tekir can be included or excluded. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. While I agree that it is misleading, that is not my reason for excluding it from this article. In fact, initially, I was advocating including it, even though it was misleading. The reason I am now supporting relegating it to a sub-article is that I'm trying to avoid giving undue weight to less notable individuals, and trying to avoid pushing points of view in general. There is no reason to start pushing any point of view here. I just want us to list the most notable people on board the ship, and put less notable ones in a sub-article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I know, I was referring to the other arguments made against including Tekir and agreeing with your formatting proposal. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I thought you were saying that you thought I wanted to remove the content just because it was misleading. Sorry about the confusion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about excluding the information. They are talking about relegating it to a sub-article per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH. The point is not just Tekir, but trying to determine which of the people on board to list in general. And by the way, the point of this section is to list notable people on board the ship, not to promote a viewpoint. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
LENGTH is a guideline. NPOV is policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, NPOV is a policy which tells us to give weight to topics based on their prominence. Tekir is not prominent in reliable sources. So we've got policies as well as guidelines suggesting we relegate Tekir to a sub-article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not what you were arguing a few days ago here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, I never said that Tekir was prominent in reliable sources, but merely that he has been mentioned in them, and thus deserves mention here. But as you are aware, I made the above statement before another editor made the suggestion that we pick the most notable passengers, and relegate less notable persons to the sub-article. After considering another editor's suggestion, I changed my own point of view on the issue (that's how consensus decision making is supposed to work -- I'm surprised you're criticizing me for it). Furthermore, it doesn't really conflict with my original stance anyway. If I were suggesting removing mention of Tekir altogether, that would contradict what I said before. But that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is moving the mention of Tekir to a sub-article, along with all of the other barely notable passengers that we haven't included here. I don't support Tekir being removed, but I do support him being moved. I think we should focus on the most notable passengers here, for reasons myself and others have mentioned above, and discuss less notable passengers like Tekir in List of participants of the Gaza flotilla. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The other article is a list. It doesn't discuss anything. NPOV says "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view". This article would not be clearly representing the dispute if a reader needs to wade through a list of names (which is not even sorted in any particular order) to find out a pertinent fact. A fact which nobody disputes, by the way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't include verifiable information just because it support a point of view that can be represented in the article. (This POV is represented with or without this name, by the way.) We include them based on their relative notability with regard to other information. Therefore, we could list about 20 to 30 names, including Tekir, or limit the number of names to about 3 to 5 people. Listing 30 names would probably give undue weight to the passengers as individuals. However, I would like to ask for opinions about this alternative.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No, we give it weight based on its relative notability. We don't use other more notable things to exclude information. We include it because it is WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV. Otherwise known as the three core policies of Wikipedia.
Trying to relegate this to another article that consists of an unsorted list of 50+ names is a violation of NPOV.
If it would make you happier we could put this guy in another section, perhaps right next to where claims about militants being on board are made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Due weight in the face of stolen evidence

How should Wikipedia respond when the winning side in a violent conflict steals the other side's evidence, but still retains its own? Should we go ahead and show the evidence that the winner has, even though we can't show contrary evidence from the loser that could potentially establish the truth of it's claims, or that might disprove those made by the winning side? They say the winner gets to write the history, but is presenting only the winner's evidence in such a case consistent with our "due weight" policy? With our NPOV policy? With our reliable source policy?

The evidence I'm talking about here is mostly video and photographic evidence, of course, although audio comes into it, too. The IDF took all the flotilla members into custody. People have different opinons about the legality of that. But they also took and kept all the cameras they could find, and I don't know what to call that except theft for the purpose of censorship. The only possible motivation for that would be that they wanted the world to be able to see only their own video and images depicting the events. They want to be the ones to control what the rest of us can and cannot see.

What does an encylopedia do in such circumstances? Do we allow the winning side to feed us only their version of the evidence when we know they also retain evidence that belongs to the losers? Or do we refuse to show their evidence while they continue to deny us access to what they don't want us to see? I say we refuse; otherwise we become tools of censorship and propaganda. What do the rest of you say? The answer we come up with together has obvious implications for the audio and for some of the images now present or referred to in the article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What if this were not about Israel and Palestine? Suppose that the Iranian government had been able to arrest all the protesters on the streets during the recent election protests and, after confiscating all protesters' cameras, it released its own video that painted a very different picture of the events than that told of by the protesters. Would we consider their video, or reports derived from it, reliable-source information? How would our due weight policy and our NPOV policy inform these questions?
Or if you don't like that example, let's take it back to the I/P conflict, and ask ourselves these same questions of the hypothetical case where the flotilla members had somehow been victorious, and had taken and kept all the Israeli cameras. Would we publish only the evidence the flotilla supporters wanted us to see? I doubt we would. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts but I don't think WP policy allows us to reject facts if they are presented in a biased or politically distasteful manner. I don't like the confiscation of the video footage or the careful release of portions only favorable to the Israeli government's narrative but that doesn't change the truth of what they show. We don't know what the full footage shows; in all likelihood we never will. And it could even show exactly what the IDF spokesperson says. You can (as many have) present a well documented opposing point of view in the proper way, calling attention to the one sided nature of the evidence released. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it does present an interesting moral and ethical dilemma, and I'm not sure it's one our policies actually address. And thanks for your reply, Sol, but imo the question of whether we can "reject facts" doesn't really frame the question as accurately as could be desired. You've heard the old saw in business about corporate finanical statements? The one that goes something like, "You let me have the accountants I want, and I'll produce the results you want." Something similar applies to video evidence. If I have complete control over all the footage available, can edit it in any way I want, and can choose what I allow the world to see and not to see, I can produce pretty much any result I want to produce as well. So what are "the facts" in such an instance? I say there's no way we can legitimately answer that question, and that to show just the victor's evidence makes us complicit in propaganda.
Of course, there is, as you say, the possibility that the video would show that the IDF's telling of the events is 100% accurate and the flotilla members are all lying or misrepresenting the events. But if that's so, then wouldn't they have released all the stolen cameras, or not have taken them in the first place?  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose isn't to punish censorship, but do its best to bring all available and relevant information to the light. Video sources such as Iara Lee's footage were successfully smuggled out, and there are plenty of non-video sources to make the case of the activists, too boot.
When it comes to the Middle East, there's no lack of censorship--on all sides. The only reason we're hearing about it in Israel, is because Israel's system is transparent, and it has to declare what it confiscates, when and from whom. It's not hard to see the censorship from the flotilla's side, as, for instance, none of their sources will tell you that three of the ships carried no cargo, that their medicines were expired, etc., and by and large, the IHH has tried to hide the use of metal bars and other crude weaponry, not to mention knives and guns. There's plenty of blame to go around. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Expired medicines

We've already had some discussion regarding the the BBC documentary "Death in the Med," (video version parts 1 and 2) but I feel that the question of the expired medications deserves its own discussion section. I just made an edit quoting the BBC to the effect that two-thirds of the medicines carried by the flotilla were "expired and useless." I was reverted by ValenShepard, who argued that This source looks dubious (hard to identify speakers etc), as do the claims. Not all medicines are "totally useless" after expiry.

Allow me to clarify the speaker issue: the speaker here is BBC reporter Jane Corbin. No, certainly not all medicines are totally useless, but the ones she encountered must have been, because she identified them as such. Without original research, we must accept her definition.

Due to the one-revert rule, I will not be able to reinstate the information for 24 hours. I think this is unfortunate, because in my edit, I directed editors to previous discussion on the topic, which included the above arguments, and this link was apparently ignored. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it notable that 2/3 of the medicines are claimed to be expired? It doesn't seem realistic. Are there any other sources dealing with this issue? How could a few UN recognised organisations manage to mess something up this badly? There are checks and balances, certain standards which they must adhere to surely? ValenShephard (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There are other sources, but they are not as ironclad as the BBC. They are found in the Israeli media and publications of the Israeli government. These are just two examples. But this is the most neutral source so far documenting this fact. I would be very open to citing all three sources for this fact.
The organizations that put together this flotilla may be UN-recognized, but they're not UN-affiliated. The standards they have to adhere to are close to nil, as evidence by the fact that two-thirds of their medicines are expired.
Notability is another issue altogether. The "humanitarian" nature of this convoy has been called into question many times. Bringing worthless medicine to Gaza is just one piece of the puzzle. This is very notable indeed. Actually, come to think of it, many of the scattered bits and pieces of accusations in this article should be distilled into a single section detailing the case as to why this convoy was not truly a humanitarian mission. But that's a discussion for another day. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I completely believe it. NGO's and receiving countries have been complaining for years that a majority of the medical donations they receive are expired or useless for the situation. This isn't new. Google some news articles, the numbers are usually in the 50% to 70% range. It deserves a mention but a new section seems like overkill. Sol Goldstone (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Three issues: Firstly, there is no guarantee that expired medicines are useless, this cannot be establised by us so we cannot presume either way. Second, the sources are all pretty dubious, interviews and such are not very academic, they are not peer reviewed, they could easily be opinion. And most importantly, according to the organisers themselves it was building materials, cement, concrete etc. which were the most important part of their cargo. Medicine while useful, was not their main goal in breaking the blockade, after all, most medicines can pass through. By their own accounts, it wasnt the main goal to bring medicine, but to break the blockade and bring materials that cannot enter otherwise. So I dont think its very notable and as far as I know the only people who take into question the intention of the flotilla, humanitarian or not, are mostly Israeli military and government sources. (By the way, it doesnt matter if it is common or well reported, it has to be well reported for this specific issue, the rest doesn't matter.) ValenShephard (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Putting a moral spin on it, that this is somehow proof of the flotilla organizers' sinister intents, would be a big NPOV violation. It's unfortunate but NGO's pass on what they get and let the recipients sort out what they can't use. Sol Goldstone (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search of "gaza flotilla expired medicine" will show that this issue has been covered quite extensively. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that trying to discredit this movement because of their use of expired medicines would indeed be POV. If the issue of expired medicines is common with NGOs, then we have to take this into account. That this is not a one off due to bad organisation and "other intentions" on the part of the organisers, but a deeper issue within NGOs. And again, medicine was not the main object of their actions, but bringing materials (building stuff) which cannot otherwise enter. ValenShephard (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, not including this information because you think it discredits the movement is a violation of NPOV. NPOV specifically says that material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Your opinion on what is common with NGOs is OR. In other words, you are once again trying to exclude information solely based on your not liking its implications. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You are making extensive bad faith assumptions against me. This is Talk, this is where all discuss things, nothing is certain or proven here. I am trying to discuss, in doing so I will make a few assumptions, refer back to things in my memory etc. That doesn't mean that is what I want in the article. I am trying to reach a conclusion here with the other editors over whether this information should be included. If there are sources out there which show that this is common amongst NGOs and that brining medicine was not the main task of this flotilla, then we have to make some decisions based on that. ValenShephard (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not have to insinuate anything here with regards to the intention of the organisers. What can be mentioned is that medicine was included in the cargo and that it had expired and is considered useless. This can be substantiated by:

Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to include that expired medicine was found, we will need to give some context. If it is common amongst NGOs and if it was or wasn't the organisers fault, etc. If a user who is not educated about this issue reads it, the natural assumption will be that the organisers were idiots carrying useless medicine and so their intentions were not 'totally good', or they had other plans like: "what were their real intentions if their medicine was useless?". And that is unacceptable. Simply saying that there was expired medicine onboard makes the organisers appear dishonest or dubious, and an encyclopedia is not open to assumptions. ValenShephard (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This is critical: Chesdovi, thanks for your source, it reveals that the medicines expired while waiting in Israeli transit. The quote is: "The aid expired at the Al-Ouja border crossing between Israel and Egypt while authorities awaited Israel's permission to transfer" So the organisers were not carrying useless medicine, but the delays in delivering it, by it being seized, meant that it became expired. ValenShephard (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I added the information as per this talk and the sources provided by Chesdovi. My main complaint is that the expirations had no explanation and no context. We now have both. The context is they were in Israeli care, or under Israeli control, and expired whilst outside of the flotilla and outside the control of the organisers. The flotilla was not carrying useless medicine, but it became useless after going under Israeli control. Thanks for your responses here. ValenShephard (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
the 2 sources you added do not discuss the medicines aboard the flotilla. You are making it very hard to assume good faith with regards to your editing. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Dont start an edit war. The only person who was against adding the info here was me, and I was satisified once a context was found. You are the one working against this informal consensus and hence you need to discuss your changes and get consensus first. The first source refers to an Aljazeera report which explains that it is to do with medicine from the flotilla. ValenShephard (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Neither of the sources says anything about medicine from the flotilla. The first source quotes an al Jazeera article which discusses aid in general, not from the flotilla. There is no consensus, informal or otherwise, to make the kind of changes you are making. HupHollandHup (talk)
I agree with HHH. Amazing how you removed this information on the flimsiest excuse, then restored it the second you thought you could blame Israeli for it. It's really hard to assume good faith under these circumstances. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Stop making accusations against me. From my first few posts here I said that I wouldnt be against putting it back if we got some context about the issue. Do you want me to quote some of what I said or you can scroll up a bit? ValenShephard (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I read the whole discussion. You made several arguments. That the source is dubious (it's the BBC). That not all medicines are unusable after expiry (so what?). That it's not notable (it is covered by several RS). That it's not realistic (your opinion, apparently these things happen). That "surely" UN recognized organizations have checks and balances (many don't and even if they did, so what?). That the sources are not academic or peer reviewed (not how RS works). That medicine was not the main goal of the flotilla (so what?). That using this would be POV because it discredits the flotilla (actually to include information from all sides of an issue is NPOV). THEN you said you may agree to include this with some "context".
Did I miss anything? I don't want to assume bad faith, but I think that removing something based on the BBC being dubious, then making all sorts of arguments based on personal opinion rather than policy, then restoring it immediately upon finding information you think supports your POV, is, well, what would you call it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to get back to the "context" issue, because I it's important. Saying something to the effect of "The flotilla carried expired medicines, but this is normal for aid organizations," is a textbook case of synthesis, unless you can find a reliable source that says that.

I wasn't actually suggesting creating a separate section for this issue alone. I think that somewhere in the "Flotilla organization and initial leg" section, there should be a section discussing accusations that the flotilla's intents were not humanitarian. These have been leveled by Israel, Israeli sympathizers and second-rate media organizations worldwide, and are therefore notable. They actually make a decent case. This wouldn't involve much (if any) new material, but only consolidating the odd bits and pieces scattered in the Israeli Army accounts, Allegations regarding intent and Fate of aid cargo sections. You know: expired medicines, the fact that three of the six ships carried no cargo, the fact that cargo was poorly packaged, things like that. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the accusations about the flotilla's intent already in "Allegations regarding the intent of the parties"? If not, that seems like the place to put them/expand on it. And you could avoid the synthesis problem by pointing to sources that describe the usual percentage of expired medication in international aid campaigns. Material on the poor packing/empty ships would be more interesting if the sole purpose of the flotilla was to deliver supplies, strengthening the claim of "nefarious motives". But in the article's words "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." The article states many times that the main purpose was to breach the blockade and thus end it (you can't have an ineffective blockade under international law etc etc.). So you might want to deal with that if you try to work in your proposal (in addition to the ensuing firestorm). Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think empty ships is so controversial or shows any hidden motive. As the poster above says, the organisers made it clear that one of their main goals was to make a statement, protest whatever you want to call it, and attempt to break through the blockade. It was more of a symbol than anything else. Their intention was to make a statement for what they believe are humanitarian reasons. Nothing is hidden about their intentions, they were very clear on this. They never tried to argue that they were only brining humanitarian supplies, this was secondary (as the poster above explains) to the statement they wanted to make by bypassing the blockade. You need this context before you add anything else. But really, the section on their intent covers it. ValenShephard (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Does Jane Corbin's degree in English qualify her to evaluate medicines? RomaC TALK 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
@Sol, per the talk above, at least one other editor and I would like to delete the "Allegations regarding the intent of the parties" section, because it's not a very meaningful title anyways, and to boot has resulted in a section that doesn't read well. As for synthesis, WP:Synthesis mandates, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." You would have to find a source that puts that percentage in the context of this particular flotilla. By quoting the 50-70% source, you would actually be providing a textbook case of synthesis. As far as the purpose of the flotilla, you are correct in saying its primary (for that matter declared) purpose was not to deliver supplies. But you must concede the relevance, notability and reliability of arguments that question the motives of the flotilla in light of the fact that their humanitarian aid was neglected and, in certain cases, useless. It belongs in the article.
@ValenShelphard, you say, "I dont think empty ships is so controversial or shows any hidden motive." What you think is very relevant in discussion, but not in the article itself. There is a substantial minority viewpoint that disagrees with you (as mentioned above, these are mostly Israeli sympathizers, but also anti-terror activists). What is relevant in the article, as far as NPOV is concerned, is that all major viewpoints be represented. The debate over the legitimacy of the flotilla as a humanitarian mission is a major point of this topic.
@RomaC, Jane Corbin is capable of seeing whether medicines are expired or not. She is also capable of consulting the wide array of experts that the BBC has, in order to know the implications of the expiry of those particular medicines. None of us knows whether she did or did not do that, and even if we did, using that information would be original research, but what we do know is that a respected journalist from a respected media source made a very reasonable claim, in-keeping with the claims of a few less iron-clad sources. To argue against this being a reliable source is, frankly, disingenuous. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree she can look at the expiry dates, not convinced she is qualified to make a judgment on the usefulness/uselessness of expired medicines. Note that there was a 12-week period between the raid on the GFF and Death in the Med broadcast, were some expiry dates reached during that period? Also this Al Jazeera report [5] says that international community donations of expired/poor quality/unsuitable medicines have been happening since 2008, so the GFF cargo is no different from other deliveries of medicines. RomaC TALK 08:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The AlJazeera article is certainly very interesting. It certainly seems to corroborate Corbin's claim that the medicines were useless. I don't see what else it proves, other than that "humanitarians" around the world don't give a hoot about Gaza. Anyways, it can't be quoted in the article, because that would still violate WP:Synthesis, as the flotilla is never mentioned in the article.
As for Corbin's credentials to make the statement she made, remember that she's not just speaking for herself. She's speaking for the BBC, which means her individual credentials, while important, do not limit the claims she can make. She has access to a team of experts and researchers, and they, collectively, fact-checked the piece prior to its publication. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS doesn't require a reporter be qualified to make certain statements. Personally I think it would probably improve the quality of the encyclopedia if it did, but it doesn't, so that's not a requirement to include information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right. My bad. But have a looksee, this [6] (yes, it's a blog but it meets the RS standard as a blog on a media outlet by a professional journalist etc.)only talks about Gaza Aid in the past 18 months, no international context, but the flotilla's medications were in line with the usual numbers for the period (70%). So if the expired medication percentage was the same as most shipments, is it really notable? Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Several reliable sources reported on the fact that the flotilla's medications were expired. That establishes notability. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand all of this discussion. Do multiple reliable sources mention that the flotilla's cargo included expired medication? Yes. Is it normal for aid shipments to include expired medication? Yes, especially to the third world. So why not say both of those things? Something like "(Someone) questioned the flotilla's motives, stating that 50-70% of the medication in its cargo was expired. (Someone) dismissed the issue, arguing that medications donated to third world nations are often expired." Replace the (Someone)s with who said both sides, add appropriate sources, etc. Both statements are factual, and attributable to reliable sources, and we don't have to fall back on synthesis for either. I also don't see why those two sentences would warrant their own section. Just my thoughts, anyways. ← George talk 20:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
But you most certainly would be engaging in synthesis. You'd be taking one source which says that the flotilla carried expired medicine, combining it with a different source that says 'medications donated to third world nations are often expired' - without mentioning the flotilla, in order to push a conclusion "there was nothing unusual about the flotilla carrying expired medicine" - which is not stated by either source. HupHollandHup (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. I specifically wrote the second sentence in a way that requires a reliable source that mentions that aid is often expired in the context of the flotilla (that's why it begins with the statement "(Someone) dismissed the issue..."). If no one has mentioned that medication is often expired as a way to explain why the flotilla's cargo included expired medication, then yes, we would not mention it in the article either. It would be up to those who intend to include the line to find a source to support it. ← George talk 20:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
ah, I misunderstood you. If a reliable source can be found that uses your formulation for the 2nd sentence, it would be fine. So far, I haven't seen such sources, only wiki editors making that claim. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It did get confusing at one point. User Chesdovi provided some sources which say that the medicines expired while in transit, which is possible, seeing as they were in Israeli care for some weeks. I wouldn't go as far as saying the flotilla was carrying expired medicines, as there is a possibility they expired after they were taken out of their care. ValenShephard (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The source that mentioned aid expiring at the border doesn't say that it was aid brought from the flotilla (in fact, it almost surely wasn't, as it was at the Egyptian border to Gaza). I don't see how that's relevant to this article, or the discussion. ← George talk 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we stop with this deliberate misrepresentation already? The sources cited by Chesdovi are NOT about the flotilla at all, and certainly do not say that the medicine expired while in transit. They are about aid donated to Gaza, in general. We have multiple reliable sources, such as the BBC, stating that the flotilla carried already expired medicine. That is enough for us to state so, equivocally, in the article.HupHollandHup (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources I cited do not refer to the flotila. They were supposed to support the claim that expired medicines are useless as they are being constanly destroyed in Egypt and Gaza. Some earlier comments noted that expired pills are still useful, but these sources seem to indicate that none is used as its all burnt or sent to landfill. Chesdovi (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur, e.g. "Old cars are useless because they are constantly being destroyed in junkyards". RomaC TALK 23:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Your own sources which you discounted are the ones which talk about them being burnt, so that must also be discredited. If we can't find a source of how the medicine came to be expired, or we can't be sure if it was already expired on the flotilla then we should say this. Nothing wrong with saying "the majority of medicine delivered by the flotilla turned out to be expired, with disputes over its useability and undeer what circumstances it became expired." Very rough idea, but something like that would probably be a fair representation of what we do and do not know. ValenShephard (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In order for the article to say that there are disputes over the medicine's usability or the circumstances leading to it expiring you need to find reliable source that explicitly say this - in the specific context of the flotilla. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
We cannot guess whether they work or not, so why not just say that? "it is unclear whether the medicines are usable". What is so wrong with that? ValenShephard (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian is disputing Jane Corbin's claim: "The Israelis – and Corbin, surprisingly – claimed the Mavi Marmara was carrying worthless aid, because the medicines were out-of-date – though these seem a fairly precious resource in a war zone." [7]. RomaC TALK 23:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Great find. Based on this source, and my earlier suggestion, what about something like: "Israeli officials questioned the flotilla's true purpose, as reports emerged that two thirds of the medication in its cargo was expired. Others dismissed the issue, describing even the out-of-date medicines on board as 'a fairly precious resource in a war zone.'" We could cite the first sentence to BBC's Corbin, and the second sentence to the Guardian's Crace. Thoughts? ← George talk 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No, not quite. The source does not dismiss the claim - it presents it, and says it is surprising (to him - a TV critic). It most certainly does not say that even expired medicines are a fairly precious resource in a war zone. You're going to have to do a little bit better than a review of a TV documentary to include a claim like that. And Corbin is not "an Israeli official". HupHollandHup (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
John Grace is capable of seeing whether Gaza is a war zone or not. He is also capable of consulting the wide array of experts that the Guardian has, in order to know the implications of the expiry of particular medicines. None of us knows whether he did or did not do that, and even if we did, using that information would be original research, but what we do know is that a respected journalist from a respected media source made a very reasonable claim. To argue against this being a reliable source is, frankly, disingenuous. RomaC TALK 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
John Grace is a TV critic, and his comment is made in the TV criticms section of the Guardian. The only thing he can be cited for, as a reliable source, is TV criticism. If you want to state that the Guardians's TV critic found a claim made by a British journalist in a TV documentary 'surprising' - that would be fine. Nothing more than that. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Some editors are working very hard to make sure the expired medication factoid is included without relevant background information. The Al-Jazeera source can be used per George's suggestion to put the info in context while avoiding synthesis. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No, the Al Jazeera source does not mention the flotilla. Using it is synthesis. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't write that the source dismissed the claim, I wrote that it "dismissed the issue." Point taken, though. Regarding your other concerns:
  • Jane Corbin's Wikipedia article describes her as "a British journalist currently working for the BBC." John Crace's Wikipedia article describes him as "a British journalist writing for The Guardian." I see no reason to favor the views of one over the views of the other, regardless of if they are the one producing or the one reviewing the documentary in question.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "It most certainly does not say that even expired medicines are a fairly precious resource in a war zone." That was a direct quote from the source. Perhaps you object to the word even?
  • I didn't mean to imply that Corbin was an Israeli official, though I can see how you might be confused. I viewed the Israeli stance, questioning the flotilla's motives, as a given that didn't even need attribution. Does Corbin even "question the flotilla's true purpose" in her documentary? Please provide a quote from the documentary in which she does.
After reviewing your concerns, I've revised my suggestion to the following: "Jane Corbin reported that two thirds of the medication in its cargo was expired. In response, John Crace wrote that the out-of-date medicines on board were 'a fairly precious resource in a war zone.'" Closer to the sources, and more specific than I'd prefer, but it should cover most of your concerns. ← George talk 00:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"though these seem"... well are they or not? He does not seem to be as conclusive as Corbin on the matter. There are a variety of sources which all point to the fact that old pills are not used in Gaza. This is clear in the AlJazzera report. That it did not invovle supplies from the flotilla means we can't use it as a source hee, but it gives alot of weight to Corbins designation of the stuff as "useless". How can Grace call it precious when officals in Gaza call it bringing more harm than good? Chesdovi (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Corbin is an investigative journalist, who produced a TV documentary about the event. Grace is a TV critic. Their statements are not on par. The reason I object to your putting words in Grace's mouth is that he simply did not say what you claim, with or without the word "even'. What he said is that Corbin's claim that the expired medicines are worthless is surprising. A phrasing I could agree too would be something like "It was reported that two thirds of the medication in its cargo was expired. The Guardian's TV critic, John Crace found the claim that these out-of-date medicines on board were "worthless" to be surprising. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece. What's Corbin's area of expertise? As noted above, he's saying that it seems to him expired medicine would be precious in a war zone. That's vague, not specific to Gaza and inconclusive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean 'Grace', the TV critic, above, not Corbin. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@NMMNG -- Re: Corbin, you said "WP:RS doesn't require a reporter be qualified to make certain statements. Personally I think it would probably improve the quality of the encyclopedia if it did, but it doesn't, so that's not a requirement to include information." But now you want to challenge Crace on his qualifications. Do you really want to argue that when he said "war zone" he was not referring to Gaza? Again, Jane Corbin's Wikipedia article describes her as "a British journalist currently working for the BBC." John Crace's Wikipedia article describes him as "a British journalist writing for The Guardian." Selective differentiating is original research. RomaC TALK 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
If he had some sort of relevant qualification, I'd be more inclined to accept his opinion piece. Or are you now going to argue this is investegative reportring? Oh wait, you already did argue this TV reviewer is an investigative reporter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct HHH, "he's saying", Corbin is a she. Chesdovi (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"Grace is a TV critic." Based on what? According to [ his profile on the Guardian website], "John Crace is a feature writer for the Guardian." I see no reason to discriminate between him and Corbin. Also, you're dead wrong about what Crace wrote. The full quote is: "The Israelis – and Corbin, surprisingly – claimed the Mavi Marmara was carrying worthless aid, because the medicines were out-of-date – though these seem a fairly precious resource in a war zone." Note the location of the word "surprisingly." Crace isn't writing that it is surprising that the expired medicine is considered useless by Corbin. He's writing that it is surprising that Corbin agreed with the Israeli position on the point. If it makes it easier to understand, you can read the sentence as: "The Israelis... claimed the Mavi Marmara was carrying worthless aid, because the medicines were out-of-date – though these seem a fairly precious resource in a war zone." Understand? ← George talk 01:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

UR source says Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories says: "So far, we (COGAT) have located two types of medication. An unlabeled cough syrup of some sort, which expired this past April, and children's paracetamol (liquid acetaminophen) which expires this coming July (a month away)." [8]. Chesdovi (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Grace is a TV critic." Based on the fact that the piece you are using as a source appears under the "TV criticism" section. And on the fact that if you bother to actually read beyond that first line of his profile on the Guardian website - "John Crace is a feature writer for the Guardian.", to the second line that says "he writes the Digested Read for G2"- you'd see that the features he writes ("Digested Read") are book reviews. He is simply not on par with the BBC's investigative journalist Corbin, and his review of a TV show not on par with a Panorama documentary. If you truly 'see no reason to discriminate between him and Corbin' that I suggest you are not qualified to be writing on this topic. I understand perfectly what Crace wrote - which is that he found the claim surprising, not that it is untrue or wrong. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Then it looks like we're off to RfC land, or one of the boards maybe, because I couldn't disagree more on the later, supremely simple point of basic English reading. There is no possible way to confuse what Crace wrote about his surprise at Corbin's position with a surprise about the Israeli claim. And I'm still unclear how you propose framing Crace (the British journalist/TV critic/book reviewer, apparently) in the text, or how and why you propose to frame him differently than Corbin. Or even why you would find that necessary, instead of just linking to his Wikiarticle, is beyond me. ← George talk 01:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll explain it again: one claim is an off-hand remark from a TV show review, by a TV and book critic. The other is by investigative journalist, from a TV documentary, produced by the award-winning, longest-running current affairs documentary series in the world. The two are simply not the same, event though both Corbin and Crace may carry the title 'journalist'. Relying on title alone and ignoring the type of journalism involved is at best a game of semantics, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue in order to push a certain POV. If we are to give any mention at all to Crace in the article, (and I strongly doubt that we should) he should be clearly identified as what he is - a TV critic making a personal observation in the context of a review of a TV show, and finding a claim madein that show to be 'surprising' . HupHollandHup (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
So saying "Two-thirds of the medicines carried by the flotilla at the time of arrival were expired and useless," and adding "the average percentage for donated aid according to the Gaza Ministry of Health" is synthesis because it doesn't say 'flotilla'? Even though he's talking about the 18 months that includes the flotilla? Are you demanding a direct quote talking about the average percentage of expired drugs on May 31st Gaza flotillas? Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Tabs were getting a little out of control, so I trimmed them in. Hope nobody cares. I think there are three different arguments going on right now, so let's talk about them:
On Synthesis: Synthesis is a difficult policy to understand. I think that is the reason that many of the editors involved in this dispute think it would be legitimate to include sources placing the 2/3 statistics in a broader context. This is permissible only if those sources give that information as a context for the Gaza flotilla medicines. This really is a black-and-white issue, and not up for interpretation, so I suggest that all editors who disagree with my statement carefully read WP:Synthesis carefully, especially the examples. Sol Goldstone asks, "Are you demanding a direct quote talking about the average percentage of expired drugs on May 31st Gaza flotillas?" Answer: No. What you need a source that makes the argument that you are trying to make. You need a source that says something to the effect of, "True, most of the medicine on the Gaza flotilla was expired, but this is very normal for a humanitarian mission."
On Corbin vs. Crace: I think there is a misperception here, that all things published by newspapers are equal. Corbin's piece is a documentary, which means it needs to be fact-checked, and must restrict itself to facts--opinions are not allowed. Crace's piece is a TV review, much akin to an op-ed. It consists entirely of opinion (though grounded in fact), and zero fact-checking is required. WP:RS recommends that, "As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." In addition to the character of the piece, we have to also look at the claim. Crace simply writes that he's surprised that Corbin agreed with the Israelis on the expired medications. He doesn't say the claim is untrue. He doesn't even challenge it in any way. This doesn't have any bearing on the article.
On when the medicines expired: The article that says the medicine expired while in Israeli hands dates from October 2009. Clearly not talking about the flotilla. I saw some sources (I'll go looking for them again) that said the medicines all expired at least 9 months before the flotilla arrived, some as many as 15 months. Anyways, as things stand right now, there's no reason to assume they expired while awaiting transfer. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs put a picture of some of the medicines from the flotilla on its website. This medicine expired in February 2009. Anybody know the status of copyright for governmentally-published pictures? I think this would be a good addition to the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your detaild and clear explanation of the issues above. The MFA material is copyrighted, and can't be used without permission, see here. Perhaps e-mailing them and explaining the intended use would result in permission being granted. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
According to an Israeli official quoted in a Haaretz article, "'a lot of the medicine' on board had expiry dates that had already passed, including February 2009, April 2009, May 2009 and November 2009." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the reference to the medications to a new section called Questions of flotilla's humanitarian motives. One issue that's already come up is how we cite the BBC information in the context of the Israeli claims. Originally, I cited it to the effect of, "An independent BBC investigation found..." Now another editor has replaced it with, "Jane Corbin of the BBC found..." When I give it another thought, I really think we ought to simply say "Two-third of the medicines aboard the flotilla were expired and useless."

My reason is simple. When we cite a super-duper reliable news source, we don't mention the source, and we certainly don't mention the journalist. That's just unprofessional. Consider the following sentence from the Background section: "Since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, Israel had allowed into Gaza only items specified on a list that was updated every few months; at the time of the raid this list contained 114 items." It doesn't read, "According to Haaretz, since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, Israel had allowed into Gaza only items specified on a list that was updated every few months; at the time of the raid this list contained 114 items." It certainly doesn't read, "According to Haaretz reporter Barak Ravid, since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, Israel had allowed into Gaza only items specified on a list that was updated every few months; at the time of the raid this list contained 114 items." If we cited every reference by source, the article would be unbearably difficult to read (not that it's top-notch readable right now). I don't see why this case should be different, since we're citing the BBC. Just because the claim supports a different POV? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A Jerusalem Post article reads "Some of the medicine that was brought by the flotilla had already expired", thus characterizing the share of medicine that was out of date in a different way. As there is no description that various reliable sources have agreed on, the inline attribution is appropriate in this case.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
'some' is not inconsistent with '2/3', and having another very reliable source (the JP) make essentially the same argument is yet another reason not to attribute the claim specifically to Corbin. To address your point, how about we state '"some of the the medicines aboard the flotilla, as much as two thirds of it according to the BBC, were expired and useless." HupHollandHup (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
1) Did Corbin survey all the medicines while they were still on the ships? If so we need a source stating her sample, otherwise we have to qualify her claim that "two-thirds" were "expired and useless". 2) We have an Al Jazeera source saying that since 2009, 70% of the internationally-donated medicines reaching Gaza through Israel were expired. Surely that fact makes Corbin's claim less notable? RomaC TALK 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that makes this flotilla notable is the 9 deaths. So lets remove all the other infomation, including what the aid consisted of, after all, internationally-donated medicines are reaching Gaza constantly, so its not really notable what aid was on the ship, if you know what I mean. Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@HHH, your suggested wording is a good step towards consensus, but I don't particularly favor it. It sounds like the BBC is saying that up to 2/3 of the medicines could be expired, whereas it's actually saying 2/3 of them were expired. Perhaps something to the effect of, As part of their case for alterior motives, Israeli government sources have alleged that much of the medicine carried by the flotilla had expired by six to fifteen months.(sources) The BBC has confirmed that 2/3 of the medicines were "out of date and useless."
@RomaC, 1) Per her statement, she was looking at it in a warehouse in Gaza. 2) I don't see why that would make it less notable. I do see why it might make it more reliable.
@Chesdovi, I might agree with you if this article were titled "Raid of the Mavi Marmara." It's not. If you don't find this to be topical, then we must remove every reference to this flotilla being a humanitarian mission. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion is no more synthesis than using the "Death in the Meds" article to imply a conclusion that the article doesn't state. I don't think this section passes NPOV muster; the IHH have emphatically stated that the mission of the flotilla was not to deliver aid but primarily to break the blockade. The subsection misleads the reader into believing that this is a point of contention and that the only "humanitarian motive" is delivering supplies. You've also deleted the sentences questioning the purity of Israeli motives. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted those sentences per the talk above. Note that I've also deleted several sentces alleging poor intentions on the part of the activists (more of those, in fact, than the other way around). This flotilla was portrayed as a "humanitarian mission." In fact, its official name was "Palestine our route, humanitarian aid our load." So saying there wasn't a claimed humanitarian agenda is a little far fetched. If we are to claim that, however, then we must remove all references to this flotilla as a "humanitarian mission," for the sake of consistency. But even then, you'd need to find a proper place to include the cash carried by the 75 alleged merceneries, which doesn't fit in with either goal.
If there weren't sources saying that the expired medicines prove malintent on the part of the flotilla organizers, I would be totally with you on the synthesis issue. Since there are, I've cited those as alleging the alterior motives of the flotilla. But the problem is that citing the expired meds to Israeli sources leaves the reader thinking that that information is biased. The BBC is only there to confirm Israeli allegations, and is never used for synthesis. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Quick note after reviewing Saepe Fidelis' new section. We should cite the two-thirds figure to Corbin, as it's her figure. Data points should be cited to who gave them (if we have other figures - I think I read 50% and 70%, too - they should also be cited to who gave those figures). Cheers. ← George talk 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As I recall it, the 50% to 70% figure was general, not for this flotilla. The medicines issues has been moved to the [[9]] section. I liked it better where it was before, but have used my revert for the day. Thoughts from other editors?
As far as citing the figure to Corbin, I don't see any reason to treat her article any differently from how we treat the rest of the articles we cite from reliable sources (see above). Given the flood of "responses" (i.e. criticism) that came to Panorama following this documentary, Panorama issued a response, saying, "All featured footage was meticulously double and cross checked to verify its accuracy, any footage of uncertain events during the raid were clearly labelled as such." Given that, attributing it to Corbin alone withdraws from the story the credentials of the entire system that stood behind her. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In general, it's best to put details on the cargo in the cargo section, and allegations about motives in that section. If something about the cargo led to an allegation, make the link in the allegations section, but don't go into details on the cargo itself in the allegations section. The article is already far too long and bloated for that kind of editing.
Regarding Corbin, I think there may be some confusion. I don't think she should be attributed inline because the claim is exceptional or because it is inaccurate (I really have no idea how much of the medication was expired). However, I do think she should be attributed inline because the figure is a specific statistic that she herself came to as a part of her investigation. Per WP:When to cite, we should cite sources inline when the piece of data or statistic is a result of the person's own work. ← George talk 17:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea: why don't we put the BBC 2/3 statistic with the six month to fifteen month statistic in the cargo section, and the allegations related to it in the allegations section (with a "see above" tag)? That would also avoid the awkward wording we have right now.
I looked over WP:When to cite, and can't find what you're refering to. Please be more specific in your reference. Anyways, even if it is there, WP:When to cite, is an essay, not a policy. The claim is Corbin's privately, but done in her capacity as a BBC reporter. Everything she found out while in Gaza is actually intellectual property of the BBC, so she couldn't, for example, go an report it on another network. The BBC published her piece (NOT an op-ed), and later stood by it, saying it fact-checked. If she had some kind of track record of lying or something, I might understand this desire to cite to her. But right now, it just seems to me to be an attempt to undermine the perceived reliability of a reliable source. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Specifically I was referring to the last bullet point under the When a source is needed section, though it's a bit of a grey area, and no, it is not policy. I just don't see the downside to citing her directly, and it alleviates issues of sources not agreeing (again, I'm not sure if we have competing figures for how much of the medicine was expired). In some ways, it helps bolster the claim, making it clear that an independent body (Corbin, on behalf of the BBC) validated the Israeli claim. If everyone agrees that 2/3 of the medicine was expired, it doesn't need to be attributed, though. ← George talk 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen any figure that it any way contradicts the 2/3 figure. Some sources say "much of the aid," some say "most," but it appears that the BBC was the first source to establish a real solid number. When a source is needed has to do with when you need to cite something, not when you need to explain your source, not to mention the author. And, again, it's not policy.
The harm of including Corbin's name is threefold: (1) it makes the source seem weaker than it is, (2) it adds unnecessary fluff to the article, (3) it establishes a double-standard, whereby sometimes we name reliable sources inline and sometimes we don't. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool not attributing it to Corbin inline for now. If competing figures emerge, however, we should cite each to who gave the figure. Hopefully they're all close together, so if that happens we'll be able to say something like "Experts estimated that 60% to 80% of the medication was expired..." ← George talk 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Don't want to make any blanket promises, though, so let's just cross that bridge if we come to it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal Aspects -- New Source

Turns out that Israel has issued a legal brief defending its conduct in regards to the blockade and raid. I am not, at this time, interested in getting involved in editing the legal aspects section, but thought this would be a great source for those who were. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cargo

Currently (for the next few minutes, I should say), the Cargo section of the article reads as follows:

Three of the ships were passenger ships, carrying no cargo other than their passengers' personal belongings.[21] The remaining ships were carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid, with an estimated value of $20 million, including food, wheelchairs, books, toys, electricity generators, and medicine[22][23][24] The building materials such as cement which were part of the cargo are banned by Israel as part of the blockade.[25] Palestinian official said on 27 May 2010 that Israel allowed entry via Kerem Shalom Crossing of cement for UNRWA projects and steel to rebuild Al-Qudes Hospital.[26] UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness said on 16 June 2010 that for the last two months they have been getting cement in. "No terrorist has taken it, they've not built bunkers out of it" Gunness said.[27] Israel prevents cement and other building materials from reaching Gaza Government, arguing that although they have legitimate uses, they might also be used for military purposes. Organizers said that building materials were necessary to rebuild the homes and infrastructure of Gaza that were seriously damaged in the 2008–09 Gaza War.[28]

I see far too many problems to name. But the biggest one by far, is that this has become a giant soapbox on the legitimacy of Israel's restriction of cement entry into Gaza. To boot, we've got at least one deadlinked source, and I haven't checked the rest. I will now attempt to make all references to the Israeli blockade more concise. As I know that this will not be an issue on which consensus will emerge instantly, I am already opening discussion. Please share your thoughts. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We might run into edit conflicts. In reviewing your new section, I noticed some of the same issues with the Cargo section. It was especially bloated with synthesis. I've tried to merge parts of your section dealing with the cargo (as opposed to the motives) into the cargo section, as well as clean it up a bit. ← George talk 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There isn't a synthesis issue, when the IDF source says, "This once again strengthens the evaluation that the intentions of the flotilla organizers were not humanitarian in the first place." There are many other sources that make this connection, but I don't want to start stacking up sources in what should be a small section. I would definitely favor returning this to the "motives" section, but have run out of reverts for the day. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Which source are you referring to? I was referring to a sentence in the cargo section which mentioned that Israel had let some cement in for a project the month before the flotilla raid occurred. It wasn't framed in the context of the flotilla or its cargo, so constituted SYNTH. I'm open to discussing the issue, though. ← George talk 17:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. I agree with you about that. I thought you were talking about the medicines. No, I totally agree that that sentence needed to be axed. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It now says that "... found two-thirds of the medicine on board to be...". Shouldn't that be "...found two-thirds of the medicine delivered by the flotilla to be..."?
Yes, that's an excellent point. I presume George made the above suggestion? I'll add it ASAP. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't me, but it's a good suggestion. ← George talk 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It was me. Forgot to sign. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We Con the World

Does "We Con the World" really belong in the article? It's in the aftermath section, and, at the very least, it's getting WP:Undue weight. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I whacked off the last two or three sentences from that paragraph. Those belong in the article on that satirical video, not here. Whether or not it should even be mentioned here is another issue, which I don't have much thought on, either way. ← George talk 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added the content to We Con the World.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that a reference to the video clip is appropriate, but it may be moved to the "Reactions" section.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

I have started a discussion on the appropriate use of the news outlet Arutz Sheva at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arutz Sheva. As the purpose was to obtain input from uninvolved editors, I have not posted a link to this discussion immediately. In the meantime, a specific case concerning the use of Arutz Sheva has come up at the article, so I think it is appropriate to inform all editors at this article about the ongoing discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Cs32en, thank you for raising this issue. I don't see a reason for an inline citation of Arutz Sheva, as the news agency is quoting an Israeli military source, and the potential for POV is clearly accounted for when the quote is attributed to this source.
I request that you self-revert your most recent edit, as I have already reverted today. You can refer to the discussion above regarding why I chose the wording I did. The reason is simply that the sentence, as per your edit, would belong in the "Cargo" section, but it's a crucial element in Israel's case that the flotilla's motives were not humanitarian.
If you are still unhappy with the previous wording, perhaps you might consider the following: An IDF source added that the poor condition of medical supplies (see [[Gaza_flotilla_raid#Cargo|above), "once again strengthens the evaluation that the intentions of the flotilla organizers were not humanitarian in the first place." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My take is that Arutz Sheva, in general, is a reliable source. Being biased does not make something unreliable as a source. If it is cited for something exceptional, then it should be cited inline. However, in the case of this article, I don't think it is being cited for anything exceptional, so I don't think it requires inline citation. That the IDF would say that the flotilla's cargo was useless is not out of character for the IDF, so citing the statement to the IDF inline should be sufficient. ← George talk 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the (edit conflict) tag. What does this signify? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was just tagging my edit to show that I had an edit conflict when trying to save my comment, so it's possible that I might have accidentally overwritten someone else's edits while trying to manually merge my comments with other peoples. Doesn't really mean anything other than that. ← George talk 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You can read about its usage at Template:Edit conflict. Cheers. ← George talk 21:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have left a comment at the WP:RS/N page. I'd suggest to leave the text of the section unaltered while these discussions are ongoing.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"Unaltered" as in the way it was originally posted, or "unaltered" as in the way it was reworded a few minutes prior to the commencement of this discussion? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
As there are now various assessments of the source and how to use or not to use it in this context, I would suggest to leave the text in its current state for now, and to make any changes after the discussions have ended. If someone would revert or otherwise edit the text, I would probably not revert it myself, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to sections which have been discussed on talk earlier

Reenem (talk · contribs) has edited the lead section and made another edit to a part of the article that has already been discussed on the talk page. The changes are not based on new reliable sources. I think that any such proposed changes should be first discussed on the talk page, which would also make it possible to inform new editors about discussion that have already taken place. I have therefore reverted the changes that the editor has made in the lead section. I can't revert the additional edit, however, due to the specific restrictions that apply to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that this sort of edit should be discussed. Unfortunately, it falls into a general pattern whereby the article is getting longer and longer, whereas it should be cut roughly by two-thirds, per Wikipedia's readability standards. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing information from the lead

Why is sourced material being taken out from the lead? It is hard to assume good faith when such critical information is being removed on the pseudo-reasoning of the lead becoming bloated. The information is sourced, and critically important. ValenShephard (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do people always resort to the mantra that it's hard to assume good faith. There's good faith in not wanting the lead to become too long. Are you referring to the edit I made? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing activists and Furkan Doğan's father

There are two references to Sarah Colborne's claim that people from the flotilla were missing. In the first place, this source is very outdated. The day after deportation procedures were finished, she noticed people were missing. A few days later they might not have been. Second, her prediction that "official figure of those killed in the incident would rise" didn't materialize. Third, two people by the names of Yalcin Buyuk and Ismail Patel are cited as backing up this claim, though neither of them is named in the cited source. Fourth, the Prime Minister of Turkey denied the following day that anyone was missing.

The "deaths" section contains the following passage: US Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey called the father of Furkan Doğan, a US citizen who was killed during the Israeli raid. "There is no reason to not launch an inquiry. The ambassador said the US will help establish a commission to investigate the incident," Doğan noted. This does nothing but add unnecessary volume to the article. It really means very little.

I will pursue removal of these references. Anyone who disputes their removal is welcome to revert and discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarly the Fate of participants section is full of information that is outdated and sometimes not very interesting so long after the event. I pointed this out a few weeks ago. Maybe now someone would like to do something about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This section, much like the Activists' and flotilla organizers' accountshas become a compilation of all sorts of garbage that various editors have put in, without many an effort to fit it into some logical order. Points that probably shouldn't even be made once are made over and over again, often in the improper sections. These sections have just become a slew of accusations that massage the boundary of relevance, reliability and notability.
However, given the controversiality of this issue, I suspect we will need to engage in a more detailed discussion of what is to be removed before removing it. Suggestions? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to make removals of material you will need good reasons and give us examples of wiki policy which is being broken. Until then, slow down a bit. ValenShephard (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. See WP:V.
So, why do you want to keep two claims we know are false, that there are still people missing and that the official figure will rise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
We also know that there weren't 75 mercenaries with Al Quaeda links on board and that the bullets did match the IDF weapons. Verifiability, not truth. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Wait, when did this information come out? What's your source? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing to keep outdated and incorrect information in the article? Or do you think that two months after the fact someone will suddenly remember that someone's actually missing or that someone died and everyone forgot to report it? What reason could you possibly have to want to keep this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing to keep outdated and incorrect information in the article? An excellent question. Here's the problem: Colborne's claims are RS. Can you refute them with a RS while not violating your standard of synthesis given in the section above? Probably not, because no one's taking the claim seriously enough to refute it specifically. Since the notability standard for this article seems to be "damn near anything about the flotilla" we can end up parroting outdated or trivial information all day. It doesn't matter if the claims of the activists and the IDF are demonstrably false or bizarre; as long as a new source has covered them saying it we end up including it. Wikipedia policy isn't set up to handle events with such massive amounts of PR spin from all sides. We could try cracking down on the notability requirement but then the battle just shifts to deleting information the various sides find inconvenient as not notable. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You're mistaken. Somebody said people are missing. The Prime Minister of Turkey, who we can consider an expert for this purpose, said nobody is missing. No reports of missing people have been provided. The idea that people are missing is WP:REDFLAG and will require some exceptional sourcing to keep it in the article. Not to mention we are allowed to use common sense. They didn't have everyone accounted for the day after the event, but that was solved the next day. Why do we need this information in the article?
Same goes for speculation that number of casualties will rise. Keeping it in the article at this point serves no other purpose than to show that whoever made that statement was wrong. It has been 3 months. The number has stayed the same. The idea it will rise is REDFLAG.
Removing this information doesn't serve any particular POV and I'm a little surprised that the people who were arguing that the article is TOOLONG over adding 6 words are not jumping at the opportunity to remove some cruft. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
According to your strict interpretation of synthesis, anything that isn't specifically stated is not allowed. Can we use commonsense to deduce that the percentage of expired medication was average for other aid shipments to Gaza as confirmed by the Ministry of Health? Does commonsense tell us that if you had 75 terrorist mercenaries in custody you wouldn't let them go? If we have a source saying there weren't 75 terrorists on board, is that enough to remove the original statement, include both, or do we need a full government retraction? The point is that it's contentious; everyone wants to include things folks on the the other end of the spectrum discount as outright fabrications or irrelevant and will interpret policy accordingly. Until an investigation enshrines the accounts as facts, this article will be a long list of conflicting narratives, most of which no one wants to read. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I am once again having a problem figuring out if you're serious or not. The Prime Minister of Turkey said nobody is missing some time after someone said people are missing. Where's the synthesis? Someone speculated they'd find out more people died than they originally thought. That didn't turn out to be true. Where's the synthesis? What's even contentious here? What POV does removing this stuff serve?
Seems to me that what you're arguing is that if someone you perceive to be on the "other side" wants to make changes to the article, you'll object on general principle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Goldstone, perhaps you don't understand the meaning of synthesis. There are reliable sources that, in relation to this particular topic say that Colborne is wrong, and no one was missing from the flotilla. It is now clear that Colborne was flat-out wrong. And, even if she were not, this sort of hyper-time-sensitive material doesn't belong in this article. Or, alternatively, let me ask you: what do you hope to accomplish by leaving this information in the article? What do you hope readers will take from it?
I will also say that I don't think the comparison to the 75 people is valid, and your analysis, while interesting, is flawed. Israel did not say they were terrorists, but that they had terrorist connections. But Israel can't prove that publicly without compromising its sources. Of course it released them.
Mr Nice Guy, while I agree with you that this behavior might lend itself to the appearance of a double-standard, we must assume good faith nonetheless. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly good faith: I'm trying to draw your attention to a double standard. The premises

"Colborne claimed more people were missing, the Turkish Prime Minister said that no one else is missing" leads to the conclusion "Colborne was wrong." But that's not materially different than "2/3 thirds of the flotilla's medication was expired, the Gaza Health Ministry says this is the average for aid shipments they receive" therefore "the percentage of expired medication was normal". In the former case you want to remove all mention, in the latter you want to keep one side who's implication ("the flotilla's aggressive motives are betrayed by their lack of useful medicine!") has been debunked as specious while blocking the context information as synthesis. If you want to write with a strict interpretation of synthesis, the "1+1 doesn't equal 2 unless a source says so" school, go for it. But apply the rule consistently.

Again, the problem is wild claims from every side that are mentioned once or twice and then disappear from the public view, with no retraction or public acknowledgment of the mistake. We can either infer they are wrong (is there a policy for this?) and remove them as you all are trying to do here or we can honor the "verifiability, not truth" standard. I'd prefer the former as there is far too much junk here, but we can't apply different principles to different areas and, given the controversial nature of the topic, I doubt we'd reach consensus on what has been disproven. Saepe, it's not my analysis but we can cover that later. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Colborne claimed more people were missing from the flotilla. A while later, someone who would know if people are missing said nobody is missing from the flotilla. We have no reports more people missing from the flotilla 3 months after the fact. There is no synthesis here since everyone is talking about the same people from the same flotilla. We have a claim that was superseded later by an expert and has not been repeated since. You have yet to tell us why you think it belongs in the article.

Did the Gaza Health Ministry talk about medicine from the flotilla? Are you trying to use this information to draw conclusions about the flotilla when it is not specific to the flotilla? That's why it's synthesis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG & Saepe Fidelis. Sol, arguing to keep this out of date (and later disproven) claim because you disagree with another content issue (whether it is synthesis to mention that the cargo included expired medicine at a rate consistent with medical donations to the Gaza Strip or the third world) comes across as trying to prove a WP:POINT. I think there is some wiggle room with regards to how we frame the rate of expired medication, but the best thing to do would be to find a reliable source that explicitly mentions that the rate of expiration was inline with donated medicines in general. Arguing to keep out of date information because you disagree on another content issue is not a good approach. ← George talk 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
People keep throwing around the word "synthesis," as though any time you quote two sources, your engaging in it. It's crucial that we understand what synthesis is if we're going to have this sort of discussion, and many editors are missing the mark. Please refer to WP:Synthesis. The policy reads, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
In the case of the missing people, A is, "People are missing"; B is "People are not missing". There is no C.
In the case of the medicines, A is, "2/3 of the medicines are expired"; B is "2/3 of medicines in most humanitarian donations are expired"; C is "The portion of medicines expired in this flotilla is typical of a humanitarian donation".
I haven't seen a source yet that has stated C. If you find one, it won't be synthesis. Let me state this again, because somehow my argument always winds up getting lost: there is a source saying that no one was missing from the flotilla; there is not a source saying that the portion of medicines donated in this flotilla is typical; therefore, saying the former is allowed, whereas saying the latter is not. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. It was talking about the unstated assumptions in regards to synthesis and the differing standards of when contradictory/debunked information is omitted. Life is too short and the UN report will be out next week. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out above, what you see as "differing standards" stems from your incomplete understanding of WP:SYNTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Booth, Robert (June 4, 2010). "Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range". The Guardian. London. Retrieved June 5, 2010.
  2. ^ a b Champion, Marc; Coker, Margaret (June 4, 2010). "Israel-Turkey Crisis: U.S. Citizen Among Dead in Gaza Ship Raid - WSJ.com". online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2010-06-15.
  3. ^ a b Jeffrey Heller (June 9, 2010). "Netanyahu says ready to testify in flotilla inquiry". Reuters.
  4. ^ a b c Ivan Watson (June 4, 2010). "Autopsies reveal 9 men on Gaza aid boat shot, 5 in head". CNN World. Retrieved June 4, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ a b c Edmund Sanders (June 1, 2010). "Israel criticized over raid on Gaza flotilla". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
  6. ^ http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli-hospitals
  7. ^ Amos Harel (May 31, 2010). "Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us". Haaretz. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results
  9. ^ Dorian Jones (June 1, 2010). "Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists". London: Guardian (UK). Retrieved June 2, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Lizzie Cocker (2010-06-02). "Survivors say IDF troops opened fire before even landing". Morning Star. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference live-fire was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBC 2010-06-17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "Cabinet communique" (Press release). State of Israel Cabinet Secretariat. 6 June 2010. Retrieved 10 June 2010.
  14. ^ "Islamic charity at center of flotilla clash known for relief work and confrontation". The Washington Post. 10 June 2010. Retrieved 10 June 2010.
  15. ^ Harriet Sherwood in Gaza City (June 3, 2010). "Hamas refuses flotilla aid delivered by Israel". World News. London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
  16. ^ By the CNN Wire Staff (2010-06-02). "IDF: Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel". CNN.com. Retrieved 2010-06-26. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  17. ^ ISRAEL-OPT: Flotilla aid to enter Gaza under UN supervision
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference UN says aid to Gaza should be delivered by land was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli-hospitals
  20. ^ IHH plans new flotilla for Gaza.
  21. ^ "Summary of equipment and aid aboard the Gaza flotilla". June 7, 2010. Archived from the original on September 2, 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |source= ignored (help)
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference bbc-faq was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Harriet Sherwood (25 May 2010). "Gaza aid flotilla to set sail for confrontation with Israel". London: The Guardian.
  24. ^ "Turkish aid ship leaves for Gaza". People's Daily Online. 28 May 2010.
  25. ^ Harriet Sherwood (3 June 2010). "Hamas refuses flotilla aid delivered by Israel". London: Guardian (UK). Retrieved 4 June 2010.
  26. ^ "Israel opens Abu Salem crossing and allows cement for UNRWA". The Palestine Telegraph. 27 May 2010.
  27. ^ "Pressure Mounts On Israel To Ease Gaza Blockade". NPR. 16 June 2010.
  28. ^ "حمله اسرائیل به کشتی‌های امدادی عازم غزه (Israelis attack aid ships headed to Gaza)" (in "Persian"). BBC Persian. 31 May 2010. Retrieved 7 June 2010.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_14&oldid=1136276368"